TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on behalf of the appellant. Thus, the appellant would be liable for payment of service tax. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Once the authorities have found on facts that there was an arrangement arrived at between the parties so as to reduce the payment of service tax, invocation of extended period of limitation cannot be faulted with - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.238 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2018 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Rajesh Ostwal, Mr. Jas Sanghavi I/b PDS Legal for the appellant Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly a/w Mr. Amol Joshi for the respondent P.C. 1. This appeal under Section 83 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the total invoice amount with a note that consignee to pay. On detail scrutiny of all the documents, it was found that the freight amount is reduced from the contract price on the ground that it was paid by the consignee i.e. the dealer. The showcause notice reproduced details of the sample invoices and the corresponding documents which form the basis of the show cause notice are as under : Sr.No. Invoice No. Date Name of Consignee Subtotal amount in Invoice Less freight charges shown in Invoice Total bill amount shown in Invoice Balance freight to pay shown in corresponding Dispatch cum Proforma Invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis, a show cause notice dated 19th October, 2011 was issued demanding service tax of ₹ 20,08,727/ for the period April, 2006 to March, 2011 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also proposed imposition of equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. This as pointed out above was for not having paid service tax on the freight element, which was in fact paid by the consignee of the said goods on behalf of the appellant. 6. The appellant resisted the show cause notice, contending that as the dealer was liable to pay the freight, no liability to pay service tax could be fastened on the consignor appellant. In any case on these facts, no extended period is applicable. 7. However, the Additional Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case has been paid by the consignee. Thus, they could not be made liable to pay the service tax on the same. (b) The extended period of limitation would not be invocable in the present facts as there was never any intention on their part to evade any service tax. It was only where the consignee has paid the freight, the appellant has reduced the price of the goods and not reimbursed the price as contended by the Revenue. (c) Lastly, on identical facts, the Tribunal in the case of Raj Laxmi Paper Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai, 22 STR 635 had held in favour of the assessee therein. In case, the Tribunal did not concur with its earlier view, it should have referred the issue to a Larger Bench. 11. Mr. Jetly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paying freight on its own behalf and not on behalf of the consignor as in this case. Thus, on the basis of the definition as provided in Rule 2(1) (d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, the payment made by the agent would be a liability of the principal for the purposes of service tax. In so far as extended period of limitation is concerned, we find that once the authorities have found on facts that there was an arrangement arrived at between the parties so as to reduce the payment of service tax, invocation of extended period of limitation cannot be faulted with. It was held on facts that there was suppression. Nothing has been shown to us that on these facts, that the finding is perverse. 13. In the above view, the proposed questions of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
