TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of the service tax in question. Further, on perusal of the show cause notice, it is found that there is no specific allegation against the appellant for suppression of facts, fraud or willful mis-statement or intent not to pay service tax. In these circumstances, penalty under Section 78 of the Act cannot be imposed on the appellant - Moreover, when there is no intent to evade payment of service tax on suppression of facts, fraud or willful misstatement, the extended period of limitation also cannot be invoked. The extended period of limitation is not invokable. Consequently, demand beyond the period of limitation is set aside and no penalty under Section 78 of the Act can be imposed on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax which they are liable to pay. A show cause notice was issued on 29th September, 2015 by invoking the extended period of limitation for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. The matter was adjudicated. Demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and penalties under Sections 77 78 of the Act were also confirmed. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The appellant has also filed an application to amend their memo of appeal on the ground that in memo of appeal, they have mentioned for contest of penalty under Section 77 imposed on them, so they do not wish to contest the same. Therefore, amended memo of appeal was filed. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. On perusal of records, I find that during the course of investigation, the appellant was asked the query by the Department as under: 5. The Noticee vide his letter dt. 30.03.2015, submitted that they were engaged in providing service of collection of defaulted payments to various Telecom majors namely M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd, M/s Vodafone etc. The Noticee re-iterated that earlier, they were of the impression that since the entire amount recovered by them from the subscribers of these clients, were inclusive of service tax and the service tax was being discharged by the respective telecom companies on the entire amount, they were not separately required to pay service tax; that after having discussions with the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them, it has been observed that during the years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Noticee have provided collection services in J K from Jammu office, for which they raised bills for commission and special incentives on J K collection. Therefore, the service tax is not leviable on the noticee s J K operations. Similarly, there were some other non-taxable receipts in their form 26AS, which were on account of income tax refund, LIC receipts etc. Moreover, apart from the explanation given by the appellant during the course of investigation, the appellant was entitled to claim the Cenvat credit on services received by them and the said credit could have been utilized for payment of the service tax in question. Further, on perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
