Appellant challenged levy of service tax on commission paid to ...

CESTAT Rules Non-Disclosure Not Willful Suppression; Extended Limitation u/s 73(1) of Finance Act Inapplicable.

January 11, 2025

Case Laws Service Tax AT

Appellant challenged levy of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents for export of goods during Sep 2013-Sep 2014 under reverse charge, denial of CENVAT credit, and invocation of extended period of limitation. CESTAT held that mere non-disclosure doesn't amount to wilful suppression to invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act. Suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax as per Supreme Court's ruling in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case. Since appellant declared transactions in financial records and no positive act of wilful suppression was established by department, extended period couldn't be invoked. Appeal allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Appellant challenged levy of service tax on commission paid to ...

CESTAT Rules Non-Disclosure Not Willful Suppression; Extended Limitation u/s 73(1) of Finance Act Inapplicable.

January 11, 2025

Case Laws Service Tax AT

You may also like:

HC determined that invoking extended limitation period under First Proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act 1994 was unjustified. Following P&B Pharmaceuticals and...

This case pertains to the utilization of ineligible CENVAT credit by a company. The key points are: The company availed ineligible CENVAT credit amounting to Rs....

Invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 requires wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax...

The key points are: Appropriation of Rs. 11,00,000 deposited under protest during investigation cannot be considered as acceptance of liability. The extended period of...

Failure to produce supporting documents before audit team does not constitute suppression of facts to invoke extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994....

HC dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law regarding invocation of the extended five-year limitation period under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994....

Extended Period of Limitation - wilful suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax, or not - The appellant is a government company and,...

The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax recovery for 2011-2012. The demand for April-September 2011 was time-barred, exceeding even the extended...

Invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for recovery of unpaid duty. The key points are: The department alleged suppression of...

The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act could not have been invoked in the present case....

Issue of invoking an extended period of limitation for service tax assessment in cases involving interpretation of legal provisions. It establishes that mere...

Validity of SCN - Levy of Penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act on CHA - abetment of offence committed by the importer as against which the petitioner - scope of Sections...

CESTAT ruled that extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of Finance Act was not applicable as appellant disclosed Cenvat credit in ST3 returns, showing no...

The court held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked against the appellant as there was no...

Extended period of limitation - intent to evade payment of duty - Suppression - The reason for such bona fide belief stands corroborated from the fact that the service...

Quick Updates: