TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in issue of show-cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. The general principle is that even ignorance of law cannot be an excuse but in this case even after the legal position was brought to their notice, for a period of five years till the notice was issued appellants did not do anything. Further, organization like C-DIT was set up by Government should be a model to others as far as compliance with law is concerned. Unfortunately, in this case the appellant has not been able to show any efforts made by them to ensure full compliance with the legal provisions and no evidence was shown to us in this regard. - appellant has not been able to make out a case on limitation or on tax to be paid in respect of four services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very was heard by this Tribunal on 19.8.2013 and vide Misc. Order No.26934/2013, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 1 crore within eight weeks and report compliance on 11.11.2013. Thereafter the appeal came to be dismissed vide Final Order No.20487/2014 dated 27.3.2014 on the ground that appellant had not made the pre-deposit as directed in the stay order. 3. The stay order was challenged and Honble High Court of Kerala by their order dated 5.11.2013, set aside the order of this Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue. The Hon ble High Court held that the Tribunal had not considered the issue of time bar claimed by the appellant properly and the Tribunal proceeded to opine in one line that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 35 lakhs of service tax demand is covered by the show-cause notice issued for the normal period. However, it is his submission that all the services are not liable to tax at all. 6. Heard the learned AR also who reiterates the observations made in the impugned order. 7. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. For the limited purpose of deciding the quantum of amount to be deposited, it would be sufficient if we examine whether the appellant is liable to pay tax or not and whether extended period is invocable or not. 7.1 As admitted by the learned counsel, there are two show-cause notices adjudicated in this case. The second show-cause notice issued on 16.4.2012 covers the demand for normal period only and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o whether they are liable to pay or not, whether the service is taxable and whether the claim that appellant and the State Government are one and the same is valid. There is absolutely no evidence to show that there were efforts to find out their liability over a period of five years. It has to be noted that contrary to the claim of the appellant, the prejudice has been caused to the Revenue because the delay in issue of show-cause notice has compelled the Revenue to issue show-cause notice only from 2006 whereas if the notice were to be issued earlier probably earlier period could have also been covered. Therefore delay in issue of show-cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. The general principle is that even ignorance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
