Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 281 - CESTAT NEW DELHILevy of Service Tax - Declared service or not - collection of late delivery charges with respect to their finished goods, from the customers during the year 2012-13 & 2013-14 - act of collecting said charges amounts to the act of agreeing to obligation to refrain an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act which is covered under the definition of declared services introduced in section 66 (E) (e) of Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 01.07.2012 or not - Invocation of Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- Though appellant is also registered with Service Tax Commissionerate for rendering services as that of GTA and supply of manpower. Apparently and admittedly, none of these services are in question. It is further observe that the amount on which the demand in question has been confirmed is apparently and admittedly an amount in lieu of sale of finished goods manufactured by the appellant, that too, on the account of delay in receiving the payment from the buyers thereof. From no stretch of imagination, the said amount can be connected to be an amount towards rendering any service, not even the declared service. The amount is definitely an amount towards the sale of goods and shall be the part of value of the goods only these particular observations are sufficient to hold that findings in the order under challenge are without any reasonable basis. Invocation of extended period - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The case has been made out based upon the appellant’s own record. It is not the case of the Department that the requisite returns where not filed by the appellant. In such circumstances, suppression or facts as is alleged in the Show Cause Notice is not sustainable. In addition to the decisions relied upon by the appellant, support drawn from the decision in the case of NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD [1999 (10) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] where it was held that the date of knowledge by the department is not relevant according to the provisions of Section 11A and the notice issued beyond the period of six months from the date of knowledge will not be barred by limitation. In view thereof, proposing the impugned Show Cause Notice itself is held barred by limitation. As a consequence of entire above discussion, the order under challenge is hereby set aside - appeal allowed.
|