Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2011 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 365 - CESTAT, BANGALOREBusiness Auxiliary Services - demand confirmed invoking extented period - Held that:- Appellant could have had a bonafide belief that the services rendered by him would not fall under any of the services of BAS as they were not providing any other services to their clients. Their bonafide belief cannot be doubted, as during the relevant period, as the services falling under the Notification No.25/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004, which was later on interpreted in CCE Vs. Car World Autoline -(2009 (6) TMI 423 - KERALA HIGH COURT) in a manner other than the thought as was entertained by the appellant. Thus show cause notice which invoked the extended period of limitation for demand of duty would be incorrect. The demand of Service Tax in this case would be within the limitation as provided in the law. Also strong force in the contention raised by assessee that the amount collected by them should be considered as cum-duty amount. As regards the imposition of penalty having held there could be a bonafide belief, the provisions of Section 80 can be invoked & set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 78. Thus upholding appellant's liablity to pay Service Tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' within the period of limitation from the date of issuance of show cause notice.
|