Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1690 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTInvocation of section 80 of FA for setting aside penalties - bonafide belief - extended period of limitation. Whether the learned CESTAT is correct in holding that where relief from penalties is granted by giving the benefit under Section 80 of the Act of 1994 (on the basis of bonafide belief on the part of the Assessee, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoke for confirmation of service tax demand on the basis of the allegations of willful missstatement, suppression of facts or deliberate contravention of Rules with an intention to evade the duty payment? Whether the learned CESTAT was correct in holding that the ingredients of Section 80 of the Act of 1994 are same as that of the Act of 1994 are same as that of the ingredients which are required for invoking extended period of limitation provided in the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act of 1994? Held that:- Reliance placed by appellant in the case of M/S. SANKHLA UDYOG VERSUS CCE & ST, JAIPUR [2014 (12) TMI 614 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the adjudicating authority has clearly stated that there was interpretation of law involved and the extended the benefit of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 for not imposing and penalty. It clearly shows that the ingredients required for invoking extended period are not present in this case. Indeed in the entire adjudication order there is no word as to how the extended period is invocable - the decision which was relied upon by the Tribunal was never challenged by the department and in view of the consistent practice that the decision which has been accepted by the department should be accepted for every assessee. The issues are answered in favor of assessee against the department - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|