TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Demand dated 12.10.2007 which is the first demand was issued invoking extended period. Considering that the appellants got registered only in 2004 and discharged service tax only on part of consideration, we find that the demand for differential service tax is sustainable for the whole of the period as confirmed by the lower authorities - it is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 80 to waive the penalties imposed on the appellants. The demand raised by notice dated 15.5.2013 is hit by limitation - demand raised in other two notices and confirmed by the lower authorities are upheld - penalties waived - appeal allowed in part. - ST/1800-1801/2010-DB & ST/53430/2014 - ST/A/57477-57479/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 25-10-2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covering the period of 1.10.2007 to 31.3.2012 again for demanding differential service tax. The notices were adjudicated and lower authorities confirmed the demands as made in the notices and also imposed various penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that they are not disputing the tax liability for the services rendered, on merits. The main contention is against invocation of extended period in notices dated 12.10.2007, 13.5.2013 and also against the imposition of penalties. The ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants are basically a welfare cooperative society and discharged service tax as per their understanding. During the material time, there were disputes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int for consideration is the sustainability of demand for extended period. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we take up the demand dated 15.5.2013 first. We note that the said demand is the third time demand and on same subject. Two other earlier demands have already been issued to the appellants. It is a settled principle that the demand on the same set of facts cannot invoke the extended period. In this regard we refer to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE - 2009 (9) STR 314 (SC). As such, the said demand should be restricted to normal period. 8. The demand dated 20.6.2008 has been issued within normal period. Hence there is no dispute on limitation. Demand dated 12.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the full gross amount received from the clients for providing taxable service. Considering these facts as recorded in the impugned order, we find the demand is sustainable for the full period. However, considering that the appellants had difficulty in realising the tax amount from their clients which are mainly Government departments and RBI and also there is no allegation that during the material time they billed or received any tax amount from the appellant, we find that there is reasonable cause for non-payment of Service tax during the material time. Considering the background of operation of assessee and also circumstances pleaded by the appellant in appeal, we find it fit and proper to waive the penalties imposed on the appellant, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
