Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 342 - AT - Service TaxImposition of penalties - business auxiliary services - whether period of limitation can be invoked in the cases where section 80 has been invoked? - Held that: - Tribunal in its number of cases observed that where the penalty under Section 80 of the Act has not been imposed by extending the bona fide belief on the part of the appellant, the extended period would not be invokable in as much as the same ingredients are required for invocation of extended period of limitation. Such references can be made in the case of Sankhla Udyog Vs. CCEST, Jaipur [2014 (12) TMI 614 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] as also to the decision in the case of BSNL Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2008 (12) TMI 87 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]. The appellant is a public sector under taking, being a State Govt. enterprise, in such a case allegation of wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or deliberate contravention of Rule with an intention to evade the duty payment cannot be made. Tribunal has observed the same in the case of CCE, Allahabad Vs. Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 370 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. The extended period is not available to the Revenue. However, a part of the demand falls within the limited period, which would be re-quantified by the adjudicating authority - appeal disposed off - decided partly against Revenue.
|