Bom. HC Refuses to Interfere with Mumbai University’s Decision to Cancel Admission of Student  ||  J&K HC: At Stage of Deciding Interim App., Trial Courts should Avoid Giving Observation on Merit of C  ||  Del HC: Furnishing Grounds of Arrest to Arrestee an Hour before Remand Isn’t Due Compliance of S. 50  ||  Ker. HC: Procee. against Subsequent Doctor Unwarranted if Initial Doctor has Reported POCSO Offence  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Must Primarily Decide Construction of Terms of Contract  ||  Madras High Court: Can’t Use ‘Freedom of Press’ to Tarnish Reputation  ||  SC Dismisses Plea Seeking Prospective App. of Judgment allowing Interest for NH Land Acquisitions  ||  SC Restrains Union/States from Reducing Forest Land Unless Compensatory Land is Provided  ||  Supreme Court Pulls up Assam Govt. for Not Deporting Persons Declared as Foreigners  ||  SC: Can’t Dismiss Appeals of Accused & Victims under NIA Act on Ground of Delay beyond 90 Days    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved