Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (6) TMI 568

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri George Joseph, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is filed by the revenue against the impugned Order-in-appeal No. 126/2008-S.T., dated 23/31-7-2008. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondents herein are providing service of Mandap keeper services and Health Fitness Centre service. Investigation conducted by the department revealed that respondent suppressed the fact of providing convention service with intent to evade service tax, though they were paying service tax under the category of Mandap keeper service but stopped paying such service tax from 1-1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e available to convention services but the learned Commissioner has held that the circular has prospective effect only. It is her submission that the CBEC circular offers guidelines to be followed in such cases. It was the submission that, in this case the assessee was registered as a Mandap keeper, was not paying service tax under the said category of service during the period in question, purportedly claiming exemption under Notification No. 12/01, read with Board's clarification dated 9-7-01. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the impugned order is correct and the statements made by the revenue in the grounds of appeal are incorrect statements. It is his submission that the services provided by the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e not submitted returns. The unit must have been audited also, as well as assessed. I see so justification for going back for the past period to change the classification. The learned Adjudicating Authority has referred to suppression of facts. If the nature of service has not changed and has always been declared and assessed, I do not see what the suppression has been" It can be seen from the above reproduced finding that the Commissioner's observations and findings are correct. We find from the grounds of appeal that the revenue has not contested this finding seriously. They had made very feeble effort of claiming suppression on the ground that the respondents had not communicated the receipt of payments on which service tax was demande .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nnot be permitted to urge that circulars are not binding on it. It is also clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while an. oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. When a circular is against the assessee, the assessee has a right to claim the enforcement of the same prospectively CCE v. Mysore electrical Industries Ltd., 2006 (204) E.L.T. 517 (S.C.)/Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE - 2008 (12) STT 23 (SC). I also rely upon CESTAT Western bench decision in BCCI v. Commissioner of Service Tax that "if subsequent entry was covered by earlier entry, there was no reason or scope to create present entry. Creation of new entries not by way of bifurcation of earlier entry r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Mysore Electronics Ltd. [2006 (204) E.L.T. 517 (S.C.)] and Sreedhar Components Ltd. (sic) (Suchitra Components) [2008 (11) S,T.R. 430 (S.C.) = 2007 (208) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)], We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases. Though the circular dated January 2003 can be brought into effect for the purpose of levy of service tax on the convention services rendered by the respondents, but on the point of limitation we concur with the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, that there was no suppression. Even the tax for the period 7-1-03 to 13-7-04 is also not leviable on the respondent. 10. Accordingly, we find that the Revenue's appeal i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates