TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoked. In the present case, the period involved is from 10/09/2004 to 31/03/2005 whereas show-cause notice was issued on 12/07/2006 which is beyond the normal period of one year as prescribed under law - it is also found that the appellant is a Government of India enterprise and therefore the allegation of suppression cannot be made. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/Additional Evidence/20350/2018 in ST/42/2007-DB - Final Order No. 21463/2018 - Dated:- 25-9-2018 - Mr. S.S GARG, Judicial Member And MR. P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member For the Appellant : Shri S. Annthan, CA Mrs Lalitha Rameswaran Chartered Accountants, For the Respondent : Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR) ORDER PER : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was disclosed in the returns. Based on the returns filed, the Range Superintendent asked the bank to file the returns prescribed under Rule 9(9) of CCR, 2004. Since there was no return prescribed, the Bank could not file the same. However it furnished the details after collecting the same from various branches. Revenue entertained the view that the appellant has availed irregular credit and they have not filed the half yearly returns in time and not paid the service tax in time and more over, the appellants allegedly taken credit on ineligible / non-taxable services such as electricity and food charges and phones and details of registration certificate were not furnished. On these allegations, a show-cause notice was issued alleging i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the demand has been confirmed invoking the extended period on the allegation of suppression fact. He further submitted that the Commissioner has found that bona fide and reasonable cause in the act of the appellant and refrained from levying any penalty by invoking the provisions of Section 80. It is his further submission that it is a settled position of law that once penalties are not imposed under Section 78, then extended period cannot be invoked. Since even for the same, the same ingredients are required. in support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. [2016(12) TMI 342- CESTAT-New Delhi] ii. Quality Council of India [2016(3) TMI 404 CESTAT New Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bank to furnish further information. Further we find that in this case, show-cause notice was issue for irregular availment of CENVAT credit by invoking the extended period and proposing to levy penalties under Sections 76, 77 78. Further we find that the Commissioner in the impugned order has found that the bank acted bona fidely as it was first year of Service Tax implementation and has taken a lenient view by not imposing penalties by invoking the provisions of Section 80. Further we find that once the Commissioner has found the conduct of the appellant bona fide and there was a reasonable cause for the act of the appellant, then in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant, extended period of limitation cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside. The department did not file any appeal on such findings. In the decision relied upon by the Counsel for appellant, the Tribunal has discussed similar issue and observed that Section 80 has to be harmoniously read alongwith Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The relevant para is reproduced as under:- 7. After appreciating the submissions made by both sides, I find that as per the finding arrived at by the Joint Commissioner, Service Tax was not deposited due to unawareness which has been taken as a reasonable cause for failure to deposit of service tax. As such he has not imposed any penalty by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 80 is to the effect that no penalty shall be imposed on the assessee for any failure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) ELT 317 (Tri. Ahmd.) by following the precedent decision in the case of Vulcan Industrial Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2006(194) ELT 331 (Tri.)] has held that once the appellate authority comes to a finding for not imposing penalty on the ground that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, the same criteria would apply for the purpose of limitation. To the similar effect is the Tribunal s decision in the case of Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. CST, Trivandrum [2011(21) STR 423 (Tri. Bang.)] laying down that if the Commissioner has vacated penalties imposed on the assessee the extended period could not have been validly invoked to confirm the demands. Further, the Tribunal in the case of M.P. Wate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
