Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) CCE, Indore vs Ankit Consultancy Ltd 2007 (6) STR 101 (Tri-Del);

(ii) CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad II vs C.S. Software Enterprises Ltd 2008 (10) STR 367 (ST-Bang);

(iii) Central Power Research Institute vs CCE, Bangalore II  2006 (3) STR 637 (Tri-Bang).

(iv) Electrical Inspectorate, Government of Karnataka vs CST, Bangalore reported in 2008 (9) STR 494 (Tri-Bang);

(v) Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad II vs CMC Ltd reported in 2007 (7) STR 702 (Tri-Bang).

7. The learned counsel also contended that the extended period of limitation has been invoked in the present case and there was definite confusion in the minds of even the departmental officers. The Commissioner Service Tax, Ahmedabad vide his letter dated 1.8.2006 has clarified to Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency that no service tax is leviable. He also stated that in view of the fact that there was confusion even in the minds of the departmental officers, there is no case whatsoever for invoking the extended period of limitation. The learned counsel further stated that with effect from 1.4.2005 even though they were of the view that service tax is not leviable, the appellant started collecting the same and kept the entire amount in a separate bank account and the amounts so collected alongwith interest has already been deposited with the Revenue. This itself shows that there was no wilful intention to evade service tax. Learned Counsel also argued that appellant being a Government agency there cannot be any intent to evade payment of duty. Even the certification charges are decided by the Government and they as Certifying Agency cannot change the same without the approval of the Government. The learned counsel stated that in view of this position no penalty is imposable on the appellant.