Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1051 - HC - Service TaxInvocation of extended period of limitation - agreement between appellants and broadcasting company was known to department - Suppression of facts or not - Penalty u/s 76 & 78 - Held that:- Tribunal was of the view that the Slot Sale Agreement between the first respondent and the broadcasting company was very much known to the department and in this regard, gave a specific finding on fact that there was no suppression of material facts by the first respondent before the department with intent to evade payment of service tax. The finding of the Tribunal, which is the final fact finding authority, cannot be overturned merely based on a plea made in the appeal by the department. This view is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in Kushal Fertilisers (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Meerut, [2009 (5) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT]. Tribunal observed that a major part of the demand is covered by the extended period which is not invocable and moreover, there is a dispute on interpretation of the relevant provisions of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Zee Telefilms case [2004 (3) TMI 1 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], referred supra, vacated the penalty. - there is no suppression of material facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax and education cess, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in vacating the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. - Decided against Revenue.
|