9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 4,96,013/- alongwith interest and imposed equal penalty of Rs. 4,96,013/- along with penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under section 77 (1) and Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1944. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant, M/s Gurukripa Shahenshah Veg. & Non-Veg. Restaurant, is a sole proprietorship firm run by Sh. Charan Pal Singh, is primarily engaged in Restaurant-cum-Bar services. The Appellant was registered with Commercial Taxes Department and had been granted Bar License by State Excise Department on 14.07.2010 for providing services in relation to Restaurant-cum-Bar services. The appellant had installed air conditioner in its premises from 14.07.2010. The license granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel submitted that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in case of genuine interpretational issues in Rules. In support, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- a) International Metro Civil Contractors vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2019 (20) GSTL 66 (CESTAT, DELHI)] b) Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II [2016 (45) STR 286 (CESTAT, MUMBAI)] c) Centre for Development of Advance Computing vs. CCE, Mumbai [2016 (41) STR 208 (CESTAT, MUMBAI)] d) Punjab Technical University vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana [2016 (42) STR 474 (CESTAT, NEW DELHI)] 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Act, 1994. In view of the above, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Authorized Representative for the Department and have perused the records of the case. 6. The admitted facts of the case are as follows:- (i) Appellant was providing Restaurant Cum Bar Services. (ii) Installed air conditioning system in 2010 (iii) Appellant had been issued State Excise registration w.e.f 14.07.2010 (iv) Grant of State Excise License and its renewal is based on turnover and having air-conditioning facility (v) Appellant's Restaurant Bar License was renewed in 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (v) Appellant has not taken registration with service tax department 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen he obtained Bar licence he had air conditioning facility in his Restaurant-cum-Bar. However, this facility of air conditioner was removed and instead air coolers was provided by the end of year 2010 till 31.12. 2012. Meanwhile, on enquiry with the State Excise Department, the copy of the application along with the declaration as submitted by the appellant for obtaining the liquor licence was produced, which clearly mentioned that the restaurant is air conditioned. It also appears that this matter was verified by the Central Excise Officer as to whether the appellant had submitted any further communication for removing the air conditioning facility and instead providing air cooler facility at the restaurant. However, the State Excise Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have air conditioning facility for obtaining and also for renewal of Restaurant- cum-Bar licence and the licence granted to the appellant was renewed regularly during the period from 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-2014. The licence is currently valid which means that the appellant is still running the Restaurant-cum-Bar and as per the Restaurant Bar Licence policy and law of State Excise Department the appellant needs to comply with the conditions linked with the grant of licence as well as for the renewal of the licence and one of which is that air conditioning facility is provided therein. We do not find any perversity in the appreciation of the material on record and therefore, the plea taken by the appellant that they have dispensed with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . I therefore, find no infirmity in the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in the matter." 10. On pure appreciation of evidence and material on record, we conclude that the extended period of limitation is clearly applicable as the appellant suppressed the correct fact with regard to the facility of AC being available at the restaurant and mis-represented and misguided the department with the sole intent to evade payment of duty. The intention to evade duty is writ large in the conduct of the appellant and it cannot be said to be a case of bonafide belief of non liability of service tax or a case of ignorance of service tax liability. For the said reasons, penalty under section 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
