Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 263 - CESTAT BANGALOREOutdoor catering service - service tax demand worked out after allowing abatement of 50% of the total catering charges - period from September 2004 to December 2006 - as per adjudicating authority assessee did not have tax liability for the period prior to 16.6.2005 and also invoked Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 to drop all penalties - Held that:- Appellant fell within the ambit of outdoor caterer as defined at all times inasmuch as he was admittedly catering food to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. at a place owned by the latter and it is not the case of the appellant that he was the owner of those premises. Thus it is held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax prior to 16.6.2005 also. For the period from 16.6.2005, there is no room for doubt inasmuch as the amended definition is explicit. Thus the appellant was liable to pay service tax for the entire period. Demand of service tax barred by limitation - Held that:- Factum of the service provided to the client was never disclosed by the appellant to the department. It was from the AG’s audit note and the connected letters of the appellant that the department gathered the relevant information. This happened during the period from September 2006 to December 2008 & show-cause notice was issued in January 2009 invoking the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the alleged ground of suppression with intent to evade payment of service tax. No valid point in the grounds raised by the appellant against invocation of the said proviso. The plea of limitation is therefore rejected. Invoking section 80 - Held that:- The statutory definition of outdoor caterer at all times has been clear enough for any prudent person to believe that anyone engaged in providing services in connection with catering at a place other than his own would fit in the definition. Thus it was not open to assessee to plead ignorance of law as an excuse for not getting registered with the department, not filing service tax returns, not paying service tax, etc. Therefore, the plea of bona fide belief raised in this appeal is not acceptable - claim the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 denied - against assessee.
|