SC: Insurer Must Pay Accident Compensation Despite Route Permit Violation, Recoverable From Owner  ||  SC: Recovery of Currency Alone Doesn’t Convict under PC Act Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance  ||  SC: Minor Variations in Later Statements Don’t Undermine First Dying Declaration if Reliable  ||  SC: Members of Unlawful Assembly Liable under Section 149 IPC Once Common Object is Proven  ||  Madras HC: Grandparents Can Execute Adoption Deed for Unmarried Daughter if She Consents  ||  Delhi HC: Guilty Plea Doesn’t Bypass Double Jeopardy; Second Conviction for Same Offence Invalid  ||  Del HC: Provision of Recall u/s 311 CrPC Ensures Justice, Not Multiple Chances to Negligent Litigant  ||  AP HC: Shutdown of Specific Unit Constitutes Closure, Workers Entitled to Compensation under S.25FFF  ||  P&H High Court: Over-Implication of Accused’s Relatives Turns Criminal Process Into Harassment  ||  Delhi HC: Denying Candidature of Physically Disabled Person Due to 'No Vacancy' Violates RPwD Act    

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