TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax and the evasion would have gone undetected but for the investigation by the Department. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that in case of a bona fide belief about the non-taxability of certain transactions, the appellant would not approach Revenue for any clarification because clarification is sought only when there is some confusion/doubt. Matter remanded back - Extended period in this case is not invocable and therefore penalty under Section 78 ibid is also not sustainable - The appellant is eligible for the cum tax benefit. - Decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. ST/951-952/2009-CU[DB] - Final Order Nos.53906-53907/2015 - Dated:- 4-12-2015 - SHRI G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND MR. R.K. SINGH, MEMBER (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore the extended period is not invocable. It cited Commissioner s order No.49/AKM/CST(Adj)/2012, dated 28.06.2012 in the case of M/s. Vatika Ltd. in its support. (iii) The amount recovered as administrative charges/transfer charges should be treated as cum tax amount for computing the amount of service tax if the same are held liable to service tax. 3. Ld. Department Representative contended that the appellant was a real estate agent and provided service in relation to real estate and therefore the administrative/transfer charges were clearly includible in the assessable value for the purpose of levying service tax under Real Estate Agent service. He also stated that the appellant was registered as a real estate agent and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted that the appellant undoubtedly accounted for all the transactions in the statutory records. But the primary adjudicating authority held that the appellant was guilty of wilful misstatement/suppression of facts with intention to evade service tax as it never approached the Department to ascertain the details of their liability to pay service tax and the evasion would have gone undetected but for the investigation by the Department. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that in case of a bona fide belief about the non-taxability of certain transactions, the appellant would not approach Revenue for any clarification because clarification is sought only when there is some confusion/doubt. In case of CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs Liniments [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
