Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
M/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007
16. Another plea raised in these appeals is regarding limitation.
It is the contention of the assessees that there was absolutely no
suppression or mis-statement of facts or deliberate contravention
of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 or of the Rules made
thereunder with intent to evade payment of Service tax. The
Department‟s contention, on the other hand, is that the assessees
neither obtained service tax registration nor did they declare their
activities to the jurisdictional Service tax authorities nor did they
file ST-3 Return and, therefore, they are guilty of suppression of
relevant facts and deliberate violation of the provisions of Finance
Act, 1994 and of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade
payment of tax. On considering the rival submissions on this
point, we are of the view merely because the assessees did not
apply for Service Tax Registration or did not file ST-3 Returns or
did not declare their activities to the jurisdictional central excise
authorities, it cannot be inferred that this was a wilful act with
intent to evade payment of service tax. We also take notice of the
fact that in respect of appeals filed by the Revenue, the
Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the activities of the
assessees had taken the view that the same is not covered by the
definition of "Business Auxiliary Service" under Section
65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
When on the issue involved in this group of cases, there were two
views in the Department itself, it cannot be said that on the
question as to whether the activity of the assessees was taxable
under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the
Finance Act, 1994, there was no scope for doubt. As held by the
Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture v.
CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) when
there is scope for doubt in the mind of an assessee on a particular
issue, the longer limitation period, under proviso to Section
11A(1)cannot be invoked and in our view, the ratio of this
judgement of the Apex Court is applicable to the facts of these
cases. Therefore, the longer limitation period of 5 years under
proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 would not be
invokable and duty can be demanded only for normal limitation
period of one year from the relevant date.
Section 73 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 78 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
1