9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 560 002 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 23/2008 dated 14/25-03-2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax II Division, Service Tax Commissionerate, Bangalore under which the original authority had confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,49,380/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty only) towards service tax on Air Travel Agent Services & Cargo Handling Service for the Month of February, 2006, on scrutiny of the records it is found that the appellant had short paid service tax by wrong calculation, and M/s. MSIL had made excess payments of service tax for the period from April 2004 to March 2005 and thus, the appellant had deducted the excess payment from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod provided under proviso to Section 73 of the Act as they have not contravened any provisions of Section 67 of the Act or Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules with intent to evade service tax as alleged in the notice. In support of their submission, the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. Commissioner reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C) wherein it has been held that a mere omission to give correct and full information, unless the omission to give full information is willful, cannot constitute a permissible ground for the purpose of invoking the extended period. Similarly in the case of Larsen & Turbo Ltd. Vs. Commissioner reported in 2001 (211) E.L.T. 513 (S.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 31.12.2007 for the period February 2006 and there is no allegation of suppression of information with intent to evade payment of duty. Further I also find that the fact that M/s. MSIL made excess payment to the appellant on account of certain irregular billing was made known to the appellant only in the month of June 2005 and more particularly from the letters dated 10.06.2005 and 27.06.2005 of MSIL. These excess payments made to the appellants were deducted by the said MSIL during the period May 2005 to February 2006 and therefore the question of reporting this excess payment or discrepancy by the appellants in their return filed for half year ending March, 2005 does not arise and therefore invoking the extended period on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
