Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.46 seconds)
Maina Oraon vs -Ranchi Commissionerate on 15 September, 2023 cites

M/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007

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. "
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 182 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next