Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 624 - AT - Service TaxLevy of penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - appellant had collected ocean freight charges from their clients at a marked up value - violation of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, 2006 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found from the documents placed on record that apart from merits, the appellant has also questioned the penalty, even on the ground of extended period of limitation. Further, it is also noticed that for the earlier period covering 2003-04 to 2007-08, a similar Show Cause Notice dated 24.04.2009 was issued proposing demand of Service Tax on the differential amount. The Show Cause Notice in the case on hand covering the period 2009-10 and 2010-11 was issued on 15.09.2014, which is clearly after invoking the larger period, alleging that the appellant had suppressed facts in its ST-3 returns to justify the invocation of extended period of limitation. The appellant has mainly pleaded that it was an interpretational issue and therefore, no penalty was exigible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein it was held that Rule 5 ibid. was ultra vires to Section 67 ibid. The Revenue has erred in levying penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 when there is neither deliberate evasion of duty nor is there any evasion per se - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|