TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh. Further, the corporation is not directly engaged in advertising business and does not possess expertise as an advertisement consultant - In order to prove the payment of service tax, the appellant has also placed on record the affidavit of one Mr. Parveen Bansal, Director of M/s Pisces Communications Pvt. Ltd. alongwith the copies of Challan in order to establish the payment of service tax of Rs. 16,19,883/- in the Government Treasury. They have also placed on record the copies of various challans evidencing the payment of service tax by M/s Pisces Communications Pvt. Ltd. Since, the service tax of Rs. 16,19,883/- stands deposited by the agent of the appellant, the same cannot be demanded again from the appellant - the demand of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the course of Audit by A.G.(Audit) HP, Shimla, it was noticed that they had received gross amount of Rs. 1,76,99,281/- during the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 but neither had taken registration with the department nor any Service Tax payable on the services provided, was paid by them. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued on 21.10.2009 to the appellant for the recovery of service tax amounting to Rs.20,52,694/- by invoking the extended period of limitation along with interest. They were also show caused for penal action under Section 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 After following due process, the Adjudicating Authority held that the activity of Space selling does not fall within the definition of advertising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, he relied upon the following decisions:- (1) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. -Civil Appeal Nos. 1921-1923 of 2003-SC (ii) The Lalit Ashok vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore 2018 (12) [TMI 1295 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - with this judgment being upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BANGALORE vs. LALIT ASHOK - 2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 314 (Kar.) (iii) Bharat Hotels Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Adjudication) [2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 368 (Delhi)] (iv) Compark E Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of C. Ex. S.T., Ghaziabad [2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 634 (Tri. - All.)] (v) Re: Accra Pac (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (6) TMI 43] (vi) Ram Steel Rolling For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed M/s Pisces Communications Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi and allowed to use space in the buses w.e.f. 01.09.2006 for a period of 3 years in all total contract value of Rs. 1,29,60,000/- payable on quarterly basis and on that they deposited the service tax amounting to Rs. 16,19,883/- on the total value addition of Rs. 1,38,36,448/- . In order to prove the payment of service tax, the appellant has also placed on record the affidavit of one Mr. Parveen Bansal, Director of M/s Pisces Communications Pvt. Ltd. alongwith the copies of Challan in order to establish the payment of service tax of Rs. 16,19,883/- in the Government Treasury. They have also placed on record the copies of various challans evidencing the payment of service tax by M/s Pisces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evade payment of tax but the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited (supra), wherein it has been held that the audit cannot be alleged suppression simply because the department entertains a different view then the assessee unless the ingredients of proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is present. In this case, the period covered was from Financial year 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 and the show cause notice was issued on 21.10.2009, therefore, it is held that the substantial demand is barred by limitation. 6.4 Further, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s GD Goenka Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi South vide Final Order No. 51088 of 2023 dated 21.08.2023 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
