TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities below have held that there was no mala fide suppression on the part of the assessee, the invocation of longer period of limitation cannot be held justifiable inasmuch as the criteria for invocation of longer period is also mala fide misstatement or suppression of facts. As such, we find no justification for invocation of the longer period of limitation. - Decision in the case of Morarji Goculdas B&W Co. Ltd. [1995 (1) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/Stay/28669/2013, ST/28051/2013-DB, ST/28051/2013-DB - Final Order No. 21804 / 2015 - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok Kumar Arya, Technical Member, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Y. Sreenivasa R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant was issued a show-cause notice dt. 16/03/2011 raising the demand of ₹ 21.03 lakhs for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10. The notice also proposed imposition of penalties upon the appellant. The notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority vide which he invoked longer period of limitation confirming the demand along with interest. However as regards penalty, he observed as under:- 21. In the instant case, I find that the assessees have entertained a doubt being a society and non-profit motive organization under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India and in view of numerous case laws that they are not liable for payment of service tax on the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax with effect from 01/04/2010, regularly i.e. after amendment to the exemption Notification No.24/2004-ST dt. 10/09/2004 vide Notification No.03/2010-ST dt. 27/02/2010. 10.1. From the foregoing, I do no find any malafide or suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of service tax in the instant case, thereby I withhold the proposal for imposing the penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, by extending the benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this regard, I placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Goa 2006(1) STR 73 (SC) wherein held statute validation clause Retro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them is justified. He also submits that a part of the demand would fall within the limitation. 8. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that there is no doubt that with the retrospective amendment to the definition of the service tax category, the liability would arise against the assessees. However such liability would be in accordance with the provisions of limitation. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Morarji Goculdas B W Co. Ltd. referred supra has clearly held that the demands in case of retrospective amendments has to be made within a period of 6 months from the date of the amendments and extended limitation of 5 years would be inapplicable. Otherwise also, we find that both the authorities below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
