9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the financial year 2015-16 to 2017-18 that the appellant has received a total taxable amount of Rs.3,72,91,231/- for sale of services from the various service recipients. For want of any document provided by the appellant department formed the opinion that the services rendered by appellant are of the category other than those services which are specified in negative list under section 66D of the Finance Act. Accordingly, service tax on the said amount of Rs.4925,162/- was proposed to be recovered by Show Cause Notice No.16/2020/617 dated 28.09.2020 along with the proportionate interest and the appropriate penalties. The original adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand only of Rs.3,99,142/- inclusive of secondary and higher educa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rules made there under with intent to evade payment of service tax. Hence, the extended period of limitation is not invocable. Reliance is placed on following case laws while praying for setting aside the impugned order and for the present appeal to be allowed. (i) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs CCE, Raipur, 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) (ii) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs UOI, judgement dated 06.04.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 7542 of 2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (iii) G.D. Goenka Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South, (iv) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. Vs CCE, Bombay, 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC); (v) Sarabhai M. Chemicals Vs CCE, Vadodara, 2005 (179) ELT 3 (SC); (vi) Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs CCE, Meerut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) GSTL 334 has held that the commission received by the advertising agencies is chargeable to service tax. However, the advertising agency being a pure agent is held not liable to pay service tax on amount payable to media companies on behalf of their clients. 7. The appellant has conceded about their liability to pay service tax on the amount of commission received by them while rendering the advertising agency service to the print media. However, still has contested the same on the ground of limitation. In alternate the demand confirmed is contested for not giving the SSI exemption benefit in terms of Notification No.33/2012 dated 20th June, 2012. 8. Foremost, I take up the ground of limitation. The invocation of extended period has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... niments reported as 1989 (40) ELT 276 (S.C.). In another decision titled as Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported as 2013 (288) ELT 161 (S.C.) it has been held as follows:- "Burden to prove malafide of noticee is on department who makes the allegation. Onus to prove bonafide conduct is not on noticee even in terms of section 28 of the Customs Act. Mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Otherwise there would be no situation for which ordinary limitations of six months would apply. Inadvertent payment is to be met with limitation of six months, whereas deliberate default faces limitation of five years. Some positive act has to be there on the part of appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
