TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - penalties - Held that:- There is no allegation or evidence to show that such non-payment of service tax was with an intent to evade payment of duty - When the appellant was paying service tax on reverse charge basis in respect of all the GTA services so received by them, there could not be no mala fide intention on their part to evade payment of duty of ₹ 44,000/- in a span of five years - the extended period of limitation would not be invocable against them - penalty also set aside. Matter remanded for re-quantification of demand falling within the limitation period - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/50027/2017-SM - A/52466/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 15-6-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Adj. req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In de novo proceedings, the demand was again confirmed by observing that the appellants have not been able to establish beyond doubt that the transporters have actually deposited the amount in question to the exchequer. However, while confirming the demand, the limitation plea was not dealt with either by the original adjudicating authority or by Commissioner (Appeals), though the same was raised before them. Hence the present appeal. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was discharging his service tax liability in respect of GTA services so received by them. It is only in a few cases that the appellant had taken a categorical stand that the service tax was paid by them to the transporter, who actually deposited the same. For veri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade payment of duty. The appellants have assailed the impugned demand on the plea of limitation by submitting that in the absence of any evidence to establish mala fide intention on the part of the assessee, extended period cannot be invoked and penalty cannot be imposed. For the above proposition, they have relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Ex-Services Security Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. CCE- 2008 (86) RLT 961 (T) as also in the case of Dalveer Singh Vs. CCE, Jaipur- 2008 (84) RLT 555 (T). As already observed, the show cause notice has not invoked proviso to Section 73 of the Act, which provides for invocation of longer period of limitation. Further, I find that no evidence stands produced by the Revenue to refle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
