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>Appellate Tribunal upholds decision dismissing Revenue's appeal on service tax demand</h1> <h3>CCE, Kanpur Versus M/s. Taj Tours & Travels</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and finding no grounds to overturn ... Tour operator’s service - providing support services like local transport, organizing monument visits, purchase of ticket on behalf of principal agents - allegation of non inclusion of the amount reimbursed for tickets, monument fees etc. – allegation of non-disclosure of full value of taxable service – since respondent produced all the records for scrutiny their ST.3 returns, they are not accused for willful statement, suppression of facts – Commissioner rightly set aside demand and penalty Issues:1. Service tax demand and penalty imposition set aside by Commissioner (Appeals).2. Allegations of suppression of facts and invoking extended period.3. Appeal filed by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) order.Analysis:Issue 1: Service tax demand and penalty imposition set aside by Commissioner (Appeals)The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the service tax demand against the respondent and the penalties imposed on them by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The respondent, a tour operator providing support services, was alleged to have not paid service tax amounting to Rs.1,13,969/- on total receipts. The Revenue issued a show cause notice (SCN) seeking recovery of the alleged short paid service tax along with interest and penalties under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalties, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, citing that the demand was time-barred and there was no suppression of facts or information by the respondent.Issue 2: Allegations of suppression of facts and invoking extended periodThe Revenue contended that the extended period was rightly invoked as the full value of taxable services was not disclosed by the respondent. However, the respondent argued that certain amounts, including ticket purchases for tourists, were excluded from the taxable services' value, as these were the responsibility of principal tour operators. The respondent had filed ST-3 returns with clear remarks on the exclusion of these amounts, which were accepted during scrutiny by the Range Superintendent. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had produced all required documents during scrutiny, and the Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on precedents stating that mere failure to provide information does not constitute willful suppression.Issue 3: Appeal filed by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) orderAfter considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision that there was no willful suppression of facts by the respondent. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court judgments to support the conclusion that the respondent's actions did not amount to willful misdeclaration or suppression.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and finding no grounds to overturn the order setting aside the service tax demand and penalties against the respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
