TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds tax demand for misreporting, rejects exemption claim under Notification No.56/98-ST.</h1> <h3>Cobra Personnel & Intelligence Services Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa</h3> Cobra Personnel & Intelligence Services Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 493 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved: Demand of service tax for the period from 16.10.1998 to 31.3.2004, applicability of Notification No.56/98-ST dated 7.10.1998, and validity of demand beyond the five-year period from the date of show cause notice.The appellant contested a demand of &8377; 35,79,441/- for short payment of service tax in relation to security agency service from 16.10.1998 to 31.3.2004. The appellant argued that the demand beyond five years from the date of show cause notice is unsustainable u/s Section 73 of the Finance Act, which allows demands in cases of fraud or misrepresentation within a specified period from the date of filing statutory returns.The appellant also claimed exemption under Notification No.56/98-ST dated 7.10.1998, which exempts service tax for security agencies providing services for safe deposit lockers or security of movable property. The appellant contended that since they provided security services, they are entitled to the notification's benefits.The Revenue opposed the appellant's claims, stating that the appellant had not paid tax on the gross amounts received and did not provide services related to safe deposit lockers or safe vaults as per the terms of the Notification. Instead, the appellant provided security for vehicles, machinery, and protection against theft and pilferage of movable property.The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the demand period exceeding five years from the date of filing monthly returns, thus setting aside the demand for that period. However, regarding the benefit of Notification 56/98-ST, the Tribunal ruled that since the appellant did not provide services as specified in the Notification, they were not entitled to the exemption.The Tribunal upheld the order confirming the demand for misreporting taxable values in the appellant's returns, discovered when compared with the amounts in their Balance sheet. The demand beyond the five-year period from the show cause notice was set aside, along with related penalties. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
