TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven the adjudicating authority conceded that there was a reasonable cause for the Respondents failure to pay tax. As is evident from the facts of this case, the reasonable cause for failure was their belief that the impugned service was exempt during the period 10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005 - Thus, it is evident that there is not even an iota of evidence to even suggest that there was any wilfull mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the Respondents. Consequently, extended period is not invokable in this case - time limit for raising demand is only one year in the absence of the ingredients required for invoking the extended period of five years, the demand is clearly time barred - Decided against Revenue. - No. ST/93/2009 - F. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2008 dropped the demand and set aside the penalty holding that the nature of service provided by them to ICICI s bank as Direct Sales Agent amounts to making provision of service for the said bank since they were arranging and evaluating the customers for the bank which was to provide loans and consequently the Commissioner (Appeals) held that they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 during the said period. 2. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has essentially contended that: (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the benefit of Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 is available to the Respondents. (ii) The Respondents are providing Business Auxiliary Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not filed ST-3 returns for the period 1.10.04 to 31.03.05. The party had shown Nil commission for the month of April, 05 and May, 05 whereas the figures admitted by the party during investigation are Rs. 241427/- and Rs. 321429/- respectively. So, it is clear that the party had suppressed the information with the intent to evade the service tax. So, extended period is rightly invokable in this case. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the true facts and thus concluded wrongly. End-quote. Based on the foregoing, the Revenue made the following prayer: i) Whether the order of Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the benefit of Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 is admissible to the party, is legally correct? ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rketing of service provided by the client; or (iii) Any customer care service provided on behalf of the client; or (iv) Procurement of goods of service, which are inputs for the client; or (v) Production of goods on behalf of the client; or (vi) Provision of service on behalf of the client; or (vii) A service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in sub-clauses (i) to (vi) such as billing, issue or collection or recovery of cheques, payments, maintenance of accounts and remittance, inventory management, evaluation or development of prospective customer or vendor, public relation services, management or supervision and includes services as a commission agent but does not include any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided to a client by a commercial concern in relation to the business auxiliary service, in so far as it relates to,- (a) procurement of goods or services, which are inputs for the client; (b) Production of goods on behalf of the client; (c) Provision of service on behalf of the client; or (d) A service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in (a) to (c) above, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the said Finance Act: Provided that noting in this notification shall apply to- (i) A factory registered under or governed by the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948); (ii) A company established by or under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iii) A partnership f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not mention any commission amount for the months of April 05 May 05, it is seen that they have mentioned N.A. in the column meant for value of taxable service which is understandable as during the said months they did consider the impugned service as exempt i.e. non-taxable. There is no other ground given in the SCN for alleging wilfull mis-statement/suppression of facts. Indeed, the adjudicating authority itself considered the case fit enough for the benefit of Sec 80 of Finance Act 1994 which reads under:- Section 80: Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, section 77 or section 78, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
