TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to such non-issuance of show-cause notice is provided under sub-Section 4. Sub-Section 4 is attracted when the elements like fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the Rules made there under with intent to evade payment of service tax - the Courts and Tribunals have been consistently holding that mere non-obtaining registration, nonpayment of service tax and non-filing of ST-3 Returns cannot be a reason to allege suppression etc. and that a positive act on the part of the assessee with intent to evade payment of tax has to be established. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period is not invocable and hence, penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration on account of golf course activities which was shown as income but no service tax was paid on the same; it was also observed that the appellants have not appropriated service tax on Construction of Complex Service, Renting of Immovable Property Service, Preferential Location Service and Banking and Other Financial Services. Two show-cause notices dated 20.10.2015 and 18.04.2016 were issued to the appellants demanding service tax under different Heads; the show-cause notices were adjudicated vide OIO dated 09.06.2017 wherein certain demands were confirmed and certain demands were dropped. Hence, this appeal. 2. Shri Anubhav Goel, learned Counsel for the appellants submits elaborate written submissions and copies of relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the OIO; he submits that penalty in respect of Preferential Location Services has been correctly imposed as the appellants have not disclosed material facts to the Department and have not paid the applicable service tax. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. There are two issues in the impugned case: (i) whether the Revenue was correct in issuing show-cause notice and imposing penalty in respect of Preferential Location Services wherein the appellants have paid the applicable service tax before the issuance of show-cause notice and (ii) whether the appellants are required to pay service tax under the Head Banking and Other Financial Services on their act of providing bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appellant s group company have decided the issue vide Final Order No.60890/2019 dated 21.10.2019 in their favour. The Bench observed that: 4. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has not received any consideration from either from the financial institutions or from their associates for providing corporate guarantee, in that circumstances, no service tax is payable by the appellant. Moreover, the demand raised in the show cause notices are on the basis of assumption and presumption presuming that their associates have received the loan facilities from the financial institution at lower rate, therefore, the differential amount of interest is consideration, but there is no such evidence produced by the revenue on that behalf. In that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
