TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted in the order-in-original. The appellant is entitled to SSI exemption for the period 2005-2006 because their turnover was less than 4.00 lacs in that financial year which entitles them for SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Loan Zone [ 2015 (12) TMI 269 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] wherein identical facts were involved and it was held that the service is not provided to independent persons but to service recipient who is itself brand name owner. Invocation of Extended period of limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, invoking the extended period of limitation is not justified simply on the ground that there was no pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products, mainly motor spirit and High-Speed Diesel are sold. For the said arrangement, an Agreement dated 01.09.2005 was entered between IBP Co. Ltd. and the appellant. Revenue has entertained a view that the appellant is evading service tax which they are liable to pay under Business Auxiliary Service as commission agent as cited in Explanation (a) to clause (vii) of Business Auxiliary Service defined under Section 65(19) of the Act. Department invoked the extended period of limitation alleging suppression on the part of the appellant. On these allegation, a show cause notice dated 12.02.2009 was issued to the appellant which was strongly contested by the Respondent by filing the appeal. After following due process, the ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption provided under Notification No. 06/2005 S.T. dated 01.03.2005, the appellant are not liable to pay any tax for the said period and this fact is fortified from the reply received in pursuance of the RTI Application and confirmed by IOCL. He further submits that Revenue has denied the SSI Exemption on the ground that the appellant is selling the branded product of M/s IOCL. To rebut this argument, the Ld. Consultant cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Loan Zone, cited in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 329 (Tri. - Del.) (Para 2 4) wherein identical facts were involved and it was held that when service is not provided to independent persons but to service recipient who is itself brand name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation by alleging that the appellant did not pay tax, nor got service tax registration and did not file any Service tax returns. He further submitted that mere non- payment of tax or non-filing of Service tax returns do not amount to 'suppression' as held in the following cases:- Punjab Technical University v. Commr. of C. Ex. S.T., Ludhiana, reported in 2016 (42) S.T.R. 474 (Tri. - Del.) K.T. Murukan v. Commissioner (Appeals - I), C. Ex., Cus, S.T., Cochin, reported in 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 248 (Ker.) Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore I v. Karnataka Udyog Mitra, reported in 2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 382 (Kar.) He further submits that the charges received from M/s IBP Co. Ltd are duly reflected in ITR filed by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 01.09.2005 as is clear from the agreement dated 01.09.2005 which has been accepted in the order-in-original. 6.1 Further, we find that the appellant is entitled to SSI exemption for the period 2005-2006 because their turnover was less than 4.00 lacs in that financial year which entitles them for SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. 6.2 Further, we find that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Loan Zone cited (supra) wherein identical facts were involved and it was held that the service is not provided to independent persons but to service recipient who is itself brand name owner. 6.3 Further, we find that in the present case, invoking the extended period of limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
