Ker HC: Onus to Bring Statement Within Ambit of Sec. 32(1) of IEA is on Party Who Wishes to Avail it  ||  Del. HC: Lookout Circular Can’t be Used by Bank as an Arm-Twisting Tactic to Recover Debt  ||  All. HC: Causing ‘Annoyance to Others’ A Prerequisite to Invoke Section 294 of IPC  ||  Kar. HC: If Source Report Makes Out Prima Facie Case, Preliminary Enquiry Isn’t Mandatory  ||  Delhi HC: Appointment of Teachers, Principals Absolute Right of Govt. Aided Minority Institutions  ||  All. HC: Life Sentence of Man Who Raped 5 Year Old Girl, Modified for His ‘Precarious’ Financial Situ  ||  Delhi High Court: MCD, DDA Ordered to Frame Rules for Levying Fine on Encroachers  ||  Karnataka High Court: State Has to Pay Compensation if Money Belonging to Citizen is Retained  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Suo Motu Cognizance Taken of Heatwaves Occurring Due to Climate Change  ||  Karnataka High Court: Provisions of RTE Act Apply to Residential Schools    

Teradata India Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (20 Feb 2024)

Extended period cannot be invoked unless a positive act on the part of the assessee is evidenced showing the intent to evade payment of duty

MANU/CJ/0028/2024

Service Tax

Issue to be decided in the instant case is as to whether the Appellants are liable to pay penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 when the service tax was paid along with interest before the issuance of show-cause notice.

The Appellant submits that there was no suppression of facts on their side with intent to evade payment of duty and for that reason, the extended period cannot be invoked. On going through the impugned order and the show-cause notice, present Tribunal find that except for stating that the show-cause notice has been issued only after conduct of audit and that the appellants have suppressed the material facts, no evidence has been put forth in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order to show that there has been a positive act of suppression on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty.

Tribunal has been consistent in holding that, extended period cannot be invoked unless a positive act on the part of the assessee is evidenced showing the intent to evade payment of duty. Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that, a mere non-payment of service tax and non-filing of Returns would not be a sufficient reason to extend the period of limitation. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags :   PENALTY  IMPOSITION  LEGALITY

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved