TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , then Revenue cannot issue show cause notice. The said provision is not applicable only if the non-payment of service tax is on account of collusion, misstatement, suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty - in the present case, Revenue has invoked proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 for raising demand for the larger period from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2016 by issue of show cause notice on 27.04.2017. However, for invocation of extended period and for making inoperative the said provisions of subsection (3) of Section 74 ibid, there are dual criteria of collusion, misstatement, suppression of fact and intention to evade duty. In the present case, the appellant has paid the entire service tax befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lex service. The appellant obtained registration of service tax on 17.02.2012. The appellant ascertained on their own service tax amounting to Rs. 6,05,60,663/- for the period from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2016 and paid the same. Further, they paid service tax of Rs. 1,01,42,141/-. Totally they have paid service tax of Rs. 7,07,02,774/- for the period from Financial Year 2010-11 to Financial Year 2015-16. They also paid interest of Rs. 23,39,370/- on their own ascertainment. For the Financial Year 2010-11 to Financial Year 2015-16, they filed ST-3 returns. However, the said ST-3 returns were not filed on due dates. The appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 27.04.2017 wherein it was proposed to confirm service tax of Rs. 7,07,02, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,461/- was paid on 19.01.2018 after passing of the order-in-original towards differential interest. He has submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 has provided that if the service tax is paid on the basis of own ascertainment, then Revenue is not empowered to issue show cause notice to the appellant. He has further submitted that the original authority has not computed the quantum of interest that was required to be paid by the appellant though the dates of payment of service tax and due dates were known to the adjudicating authority at the time of passing of the order-in-original. Therefore, on that count, the order to pay interest is not sustainable. He has further submitted that there was no intention to evad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of duty. We find that in the present case, Revenue has invoked proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 for raising demand for the larger period from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2016 by issue of show cause notice on 27.04.2017. However, we find that for invocation of extended period and for making inoperative the said provisions of subsection (3) of Section 74 ibid, there are dual criteria of collusion, misstatement, suppression of fact and intention to evade duty. In the present case, the appellant has paid the entire service tax before issue of show cause notice. Therefore, intention to evade service tax is absent in the present case. Therefore, we hold that there was no case for issue of show cause notice and, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
