9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed the demand of education cess and secondary & higher education cess amounting to Rs.1,64,07,487/- under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith interest under Section 75 of the Act and also imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of engine and transmission parts of two-wheeler and four-wheeler motor vehicles and was regularly paying service tax under the categories of 'Consulting Engineering Service' and 'Intellectual Property Service' after availing the benefit of Notification No. 18/2002-ST dated 16.12.2002 and Notification No. 17/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004. As per the said Notifications, exemption was granted from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings have also emanated from the same audit proceedings from which the above stated proceedings have been initiated. She further submits that the department has not filed any appeal against the above stated Orders-in-Original and has accepted the position that the Appellant is not liable to pay the demand of short payment of education cess and secondary & higher education cess raised by the department and the said Orders-in-Original have attained finality. She further submits that it is a settled legal position that the department cannot take contrary stand in proceedings on the same issue for the same assessee. In this regard, the she relies on the following decisions: * Commissioner of Central Excise vs. SS Engineers - 2023 (386 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.9.2004 wherein it has been clarified that in case of partial exemption by way of abatement, education cess shall be calculated on the net tax paid and not the entire amount of service tax payable before the abatement. 4.6 She further submits that the demand in the present case has been incorrectly computed on best judgment basis for the period 2008-09 to 30.09.2010 under Section 72 of the Act. She also submits that the provisions of best judgment assessment under Section 72 are not applicable in the present case because the Appellant had been regularly furnishing returns. 4.7 The learned Counsel also raises the issue of extended period of limitation and submits that the Appellant had a bona fide belief that they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
