9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2012-13 onwards. In the circumstances, there is no reason to invoke extended period of limitation in the absence of any ingredient with an intention to evade payment of service tax. Thus, show cause notice issued under the provisions of Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the notice is hit by bar of limitation. Further, it is found that this Tribunal and other Co-ordinate Benches, in catena of decisions continuously hold that solely on the basis of Income Tax Returns, demand cannot be sustainable. Therefore, it is essential to establish that the value on which such service tax is calculated is the value under Section 67 and the same is derived from the consideration received by the appellant ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016-17. Both the Lower Authorities confirmed the demand along with the interest and penalty as proposed in respective show cause notice. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that no investigation taken place, no books of records perused by the Department, the demand was solely on the basis of Income Tax Returns not sustainable in law. She further submits that the documentary evidence to show that the appellant had not received the consideration and was shown in their Income Tax Return. She relied on invoices, form 26AS and Income Tax Returns. Further, Learned Counsel relies on the following case laws to support her contention: i) Gopichenna Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal-GST [2024 (3) TMI 11 CESTAT, Hyderabad] ii) Indian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... testing that before the issuance of SCN, the Department has sent letters through e-mail to which the appellant has not responded to. After the issuance of SCN as well, the Department sent summons and letters to which appellant have not replied and neither appeared before the concerned authority nor any request made for further time. Thus, the ex-parte Order-in-Original was passed. He further submits that during the first appeal, appellant did not provide proper reconciliation of numbers and have not provided any supporting evidence to explain the difference between values of 26As and ST-3 Returns. 5. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned AR for the Department and perused the documents. 6. I find that the entire demand is based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
