Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 478 - AT - Service TaxInvocation of Extended period of limitation - proviso to Section 73 (1) and Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Air Travel Agent’ services - suppression of facts or not? - Held that:- A mere non-disclosure of the fact cannot make a guilty mind of the assessees so as to justifiably invoking the longer period - Hon’ble SC in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (2) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has observed that a mere inaction or failure on the part a manufacturer is not sufficient to invoke the larger limitation of five years and the same would be applicable only when something positive indicating that the manufacturer had the reasonable belief that he has to give the particular information. In the present case, there is no evidence of any malafide on the part of the assesse. Also, the said issue was the subject matter of litigation with the Revenue pending at various levels and all the Air Travel Agents were fighting the case with the department on the taxability. As such, it cannot be held that the present appellant was guilty of any suppression or mis-statement etc., so as to invoke the larger period of limitation - the major part of the demand, being beyond the normal period of one year is barred by limitation. A part of the demand would fall within the limitation period for which the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|