4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Vipra Enterprises on 29 November, 2013
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Appellant has not contested the issue on merits but has contested the demand on the grounds that extended period cannot be invoked in the present proceedings, because there was a bonafide view, as per CBEC circular and various judicial pronouncements that the word commercial concern did not include the services provided by the individuals or proprietary concern. The word commercial concern under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 was substituted with the word Any person with effect from 01.05.2006. Appellant started paying Service Tax after availing the admissible value based exemption. Even services rendered prior to 01.05.2008 and amount received after 01.05.2006 was not required to be charged to Service Tax. Under the above facts and circumstances, no suppression or mis-statement with intention to evade payment of Service Tax can be attributed on the part of the appellant. Under similar circumstances, it has been held by CESTAT and Gujarat High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd Vs CCE Allahabad (supra), Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE Surat-I (supra) and CCE Surat-I Vs. Garden Silk Mills (supra) that the extended period cannot be invoked.