9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exporter of guar gum powder and split. During the period 1.10.2015 to 30.06.2017, the appellant had shown freight and cartage expenses which are taxable under the category of goods transport agency service and tax was payable by the appellant under reverse charge mechanism. As appellant did not pay the said service tax, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 19.04.2021 for demand of service tax on goods transport agency service under reverse charge mechanism by invoking extended period of limitation. The matter was adjudicated, the demand of service tax along with interest was confirmed and penalty was also imposed. The said order was challenged before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who affirmed the order of adjudication and ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also relied on the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC). 5. The learned consultant also argued that the whole of the demand is barred by limitation as for the period 01.10.2015 to 30.06.2017, the show cause notice has been issued on 19.04.2021 by invoking extended period of limitation as whatever service tax was to be paid by the appellant same is entitled as refund or Cenvat credit. In that circumstances, there is no mala fide intention of the appellant not to pay service tax. In that circumstances, extended period of limitation is not invokable as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amco Batteries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2003 (153) ELT 7 (SC). He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, the same is entitled as Cenvat credit or refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the appellant being exporter. In that circumstances, the mala fide intentions of the appellant are missing. In that circumstances, extended period of limitation is not invokable as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Satyam Enterprises (supra), where this Tribunal observed as under: "6. The admitted fact is that the appellant was required to pay service tax on the services received from abroad under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant did not pay service tax thereon. The show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation. Therefore, it is required to be seen whether there was malafide intent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
