Appellant not liable for penalties on service tax due to lack of evidence of intent.

The tribunal concluded that the appellant, liable to pay service tax on GTA services, failed to establish payment to transporters. The extended limitation period was deemed inapplicable due to lack of evidence of intent to evade duty. As the appellant paid service tax on a reverse charge basis without mala fide intent, penalties were not applicable. The case was remanded for quantifying the demand within the limitation period, disposing of the appeal accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax on GTA services.
2. Non-payment of service tax on certain consignments.
3. Confirmation of service tax demand.
4. Challenge on the point of time bar.
5. Failure to establish that transporters deposited the service tax.
6. Invocation of the longer period of limitation.
7. Allegation of intent to evade payment of duty.
8. Applicability of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a recipient of GTA services, was liable to pay service tax on a reverse charge basis. Scrutiny revealed non-payment of service tax on certain consignments.
2. Proceedings were initiated through a show cause notice proposing to confirm a service tax demand for a specific period. The demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The matter was remanded to verify the appellant's claim of paying service tax to transporters who deposited the amount. The plea of limitation was left open for contest.
4. In subsequent proceedings, the demand was confirmed as the appellant failed to prove that the transporters deposited the amount. However, the limitation plea was not addressed by the authorities.
5. The appellant argued they paid service tax to transporters who affirmed depositing the amount. The lack of specific details led to the confirmation of the demand.
6. The demand was raised under the extended period of limitation. The absence of evidence of mala fide intention and non-invocation of the proviso to Section 73 favored the appellant.
7. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, allowing the Revenue to quantify the demand within the limitation period.
8. As no mala fide intent was established and the appellant paid service tax on reverse charge basis, the extended period of limitation and penalty were deemed inapplicable.

The judgment concluded by remanding the matter for quantification of the demand falling within the limitation period, disposing of the appeal accordingly.

---