Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1221 - CESTAT CHENNAIExtended period of limitation - penalty - appellants collected service tax on Man-power Supply Service but failed to remit the same to Government account - Held that:- When the appellants have furnished details on 15.09.2006, then the show-cause notice ought to have been issued within one year from the date of such knowledge received by the department. On the peculiar set of facts presented by appellants on the case, when the department has come to know about the contract agreement between the appellants and their clients, showing details of services rendered by them under Man-power Supply service, the invocation of extended period after 15.09.2006 cannot sustain - the demand for the period 15.09.2006 to 31.03.2008 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside - appeal partly succeeds on the ground of limitation. In identical set of facts, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. V.N.K. Menon & Co., Vs CESTAT, Chennai [2015 (7) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has upheld the decision of Tribunal which set aside the demand after the date when department came to know about the details. Period prior to 15.09.2006 - Held that:- The ingredients of suppression are very much present prior to 15.09.2006. Only pursuant to the investigation conducted not only with appellants but also with many of their clients like M/s. SPIC, M/s. Raddison GRT, M/s. Aircel, etc., did the fact of collection of service tax and the evasion come to light. Discernible, these facts were suppressed from the Department till the investigation. This being so, not only is the extended period invocable up to 15.09.2006 and demand in Annexure-A of the notice sustainable with interest up to that date but the penalty equal to the amount of such revised tax liability is also imposable. Appeal allowed in part.
|