9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided in SEZ as sub-contractor is exempted under N/N. 9/2009-ST, as amended vide N/N. 17/2011-ST. Since the appellant have declared in the ST-3 return the value of exempted service which is subject matter of the present appeal, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant had strong prima-facie case on merit also therefore bonafide belief of the appellant cannot be doubted. There is no malafide intention in non-payment of service tax in respect of service provided in SEZ. Accordingly, the demand is not sustainable on the ground of time-bar itself. Hence, the impugned order is set-aside - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. C. L. MAHAR , MEMBER ( TECHNI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed vide Notification No. 17/2011-ST. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2013 was issued to the appellant. The said SCN was adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority under the impugned order wherein the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Service tax of Rs.4,76,805/- along with order for the recovery of interest of Rs.1,29,818/- with appropriation of an amount of service tax of Rs. 4,76,805/- and Interest of Rs. 1,29,818/- paid by the appellant on 22.04.2013. Penalty under Section 78 ibid has also been imposed under the impugned order. Being aggrieved by order-in-original, appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be rejected on merits as well as on time-bar, therefore the present appeal. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited - reported at [2015] 57 taxmann.com 270 (SC) 3. Shri P. Ganesan, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the present appeal can be disposed of only on the ground of time-bar. In this regard, we find that appellant in their ST-3 returns for the period April to September 2010 declared the value towards exempted service which is in respect of service provided in the SEZ. The appellant had a bonafide belief that service provided in SEZ as sub-contractor is exempted under Notification No. 9/2009-ST, as amended vide Notification No. 17/2011-ST. Since the appellant have decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
