9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, where the service tax payable is nil, the central excise officer has been empowered to either reduce or waive the penalty, on being satisfied that there is sufficient reason. Time Limitation - SCN issued on 08.02.2019 is beyond the period of 5 years - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice issued on 08.02.2019 is beyond the period of 5 years and hence, the same is not sustainable - the demand set aside on the ground of limitation being beyond the period of 5 years. There are no merit in the impugned order and the same deserves to be set aside - appeal allowed. - MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. J. Kainat, Advocate for the appellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The challenge in the present app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f that there was no service transaction during the period October, 2012 to March, 2013. In this regard, the statutory provisions as per Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules though provides for payment of late fee for the delay, as prescribed therein, however, the 3rd proviso, which has been inserted vide notification no.4/2008 dated 01.03.2008 specifically provides for the situation where the service tax payable is nil and empowers the central excise officers that on being satisfied that there is sufficient reason for not filing the return to either reduce or waive the penalty. The proviso to Rule 7C is quoted below:- Rule 7C Amount to be paid for delay in furnishing the prescribed return [1] Where the return prescribed under Rule 7 is furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal observed that it was a fit case to invoke the proviso to Rule 7C of the Rules and, therefore, waived the late fee charges. Similarly, in the case of Prabhadevi Himgiri CHSL Vs. CCE ST [Final Order No.A/86112/2022 dated 28.11.2022], the issue involved was enhancement of the late fee/penalty and it was held that since the appellants are not liable to pay service tax at all, then Section 70 itself has no application. Although they have filed returns belatedly but they were not obliged to do so and hence, there is no justification for imposing any penalty. 7. Thus, it is clear that the requirement to file the ST-3 Returns, as provided in Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, is only in the event where the services are provided. Once no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2021, the Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand, however, in the present order-in-original dated 31.03.2021, the demand has been confirmed. For this peculiar situation, benefit must accrue in favour of the appellant as the order dropping the demand has been passed prior in time, inter-alia, observing as under: 6. I have carefully gone through the case records. The assesse s primary contention is that in view of Board vide Circular No.97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007, if no service tax is rendered by service provider, there is no requirement to file ST-3 return and that they had closed their business in March, 2016 and there was no business activity carried out during the period April, 2016 to September, 2016. Further, the assessee cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
