9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected and the same was deposited in the Government Treasury. The case of the department is that the appellant being provider of service of Technical Testing and Analysis, they are liable to pay service tax. Accordingly the demand of service tax was confirmed. 2. Shri N.V. Suchak, Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is an arm of the Government of Gujarat and they collected mandatory fees at the rates prescribed in the schedule of rates and the amount was deposited in Government Treasury. Therefore, he submits that the appellant are not falling under the category of person liable to pay service tax for the reason that it is one of the arms of Government of Gujarat and provide service to ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucherry - 2017 (3) GSTL 163 (Tri. Chennai) (c) Mathania Fabrics vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2008 (221) ELT 481 (SC) (d) CCE, Surat vs. Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Limited - 2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.) (e) Union Quality Plastic Limited vs. CCE & ST., Vapi - 2013 (294) ELT 222 (Tri. LB) (f) Order of Revisionary Authority, Department of Revenue - in the case of Goa Shipyard Limited - reported at 2014 (33) STR 203 (GOI). 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the record, we find that without going into merits, the appeals can be disposed of on limitation itself. We find that there is no dispute that the appellant are a part of the Government of Gujarat, providing services of Technical Testing and Analysis to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the impugned order in which pure findings of fact have been recorded. Once the dealer-respondent is a government organisation like Markfed it is not easy to infer any evasion of duty much less its intention to do so. There is thus no merit in the appeal as no question of law warranting its admission would arise. Dismissed". In the case of Bharat Yantra Nigam Limited (supra), this Tribunal on the issue of limitation has held as under :- "4. ....... ....... However, since the respondent are a Public Sector Undertaking, the longer limitation period for demand of non-paid service tax under proviso to Section 73(1) would not be invocable, as in the circumstances of the case, the allegation of wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of seeds. In that circumstance, the respondent is entitle for cum tax benefit. In view of the above observations, we hold that the demand for normal period is payable with cum tax benefit. No penalties are warranted in the lack of mala fide intention to evade payments of service tax." On the similar issue, in the case of Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corpn. Limited, this Tribunal passed the following order:- "5. We also further note that the appellant is a public sector undertaking, being a State Govt. enterprise, in such a case allegation of wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or deliberate contravention of Rule with an intention to evade the duty payment cannot be made. Tribunal has observed the same in the case of CCE, Allahaba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
