Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 321 - CESTAT ALLAHABADImposition of penalty - non-payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - “Selling Commission‟ services provided in relation to export of goods to foreign agents in foreign currency - reverse charge mechanism - applicability of exemption granted under Section 26 of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 - period of dispute is from 3 March, 2009 to 31 March 2011 - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is true that the exemption was granted under Section 26(1) (e) of the 2005 Act, subject to the provisions of sub section (2) and Notification dated 3 March, 2009 provided that the exemption from payment of Service Tax shall be by way of refund. Thus, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have deposited the service tax on reverse charge mechanism and then claimed refund. This was not done and it is only when the Department pointed out this fact to the appellant when it visited the offices of the appellant, that the appellant immediately deposited the amount of service tax as also interest and thereafter claimed refund. This refund was granted to appellant by orders dated 31 January, 2012 and 13 February, 2012 and the amount was also paid to the appellant. These refund orders, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant have attained finality. The refunds were granted since taxable services were provided by the appellant to carry out authorized operation in SEZ. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant had submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice pointing out that the appellant had for bona fide reasons not deposited the service tax and in any case when the Department brought to the notice of the appellant the Notification dated 3 March, 2009, the appellant deposited the entire service tax as also interest. The appellant cannot be said to have had any intention to evade payment of service tax, more particularly when the Notification dated 3 March, 2009 enabled the appellant to claim refund of any service tax paid by it in its entirety. It is plausible that the appellant may not have paid service tax because of ignorance of the Notification dated 3 March, 2009. The subsequent Notification dated 1 March, 2011, which superseded earlier Notification dated 3 March, 2009, is in similar terms and it also provides for exemption of payment of service tax by way of refund - It is true that ignorance of law is no excuse, but at the same time non-payment has to be with an intention to evade payment of service tax. The requirement that suppression has to be with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax. The orders imposing penalty for the reason that the appellant had not deposited the Service Tax cannot, therefore be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|