TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) has dropped the penalty holding that there is no wilful default in non-payment of service tax, it is not proper in upholding the demand on limitation ground in as much as the ingredients such as fraud, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, etc. are common in both the statutory provisions, i.e., proviso to Section 73 as also in Section 78 ibid. The extended period of limitation canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab Scheme Operator Service' during the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 (up to February, 2011). 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. In the present case, the service tax Department vide adjudication order dated 09.11.2012 had confirmed the service tax demand of ₹ 28,10,840/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty, on the ground that the services provided by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant by recording a positive finding that there was no evidence to show the wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant for not discharging the service tax liability. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:- 17. Thus I find in the instant case there is only inadvertent non-payment of service tax and there was nothing on record displaying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of service tax liability and the liability should be confined to the period of one year from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for ascertaining the normal limitation period and to confirm the service tax liability, if an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
