TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of duty. Understandably, no personal benefit or for that matter, no benefit whatsoever across the organization for such non-payment of tax - also, a major part of the SCN is hit by limitation. The appellants are liable to pay Service Tax in the normal period i.e. after 20.04.2005 - demand restricted to normal period - appeal allowed in part. - ST/7/2007-DB - Final Order No. 21219/2018 - Dated:- 28-8-2018 - HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And HON'BLE SHRI P.ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. Manoj Pillai, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : P. Anjani Kumar Centre for Management Development (CMD), Thiruvananthapuram, the appellants, were issued a SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that date is hit by limitation. They submitted that they being a Government sponsored organization were under a bona fide belief and were at no point of time having intent to evade payment of duty. In the absence of mans ria extended period cannot be invoked. They relied upon following case laws: (i) Jaiprakash industries Ltd vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (SC). (ii) Gopal zarda Udyog vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 251 (S.C.) (iii) Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) (iv) Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I- 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) (v) Collector Of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuine belief that their activities did not constitute any taxable service in respect of which Service Tax is liable to be paid since the Department raised the issue; they moved to the Ministry of Finance for seeking clarification on receipt of clarification they had proceeded to as strictly in accordance with the law and got themselves registered and started collecting and paying Service Tax extended period cannot be invoked. 5. We find that as per the ratio of the cases cited, the following observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court are required to be noted: (i) Mere failure or negligence in not taking license or not paying duty not sufficient to invoke extended period. (ii) Suppression of facts not a failure to disclose lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants did not seek clarifications on their own from the Department till the Preventive Officers visited the appellants, extended period is invocable is not acceptable. What is underlined that such suppression should be willful; the appellants being a Government-sponsored organization cannot be alleged to have intent to evade payment of duty. Understandably, no personal benefit or for that matter, no benefit whatsoever across the organization for such non-payment of tax, though the above decisions are rendered in evaluating the provisions of Section 11(A) of Central Excise Act, 1944. We find that it is applicable to the provisions of Service Tax also. The wordings under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
