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>High Court upholds Tribunal decision on Finance Act & Central Excise Act appeal</h1> <h3>The Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai (West) Versus Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd.</h3> The Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai (West) Versus Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - TMI Issues:Challenge to order under Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 and Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding extended period for demands.Analysis:The appellant challenged the order passed by the Tribunal, arguing that the extended period of limitation should be applicable in the case. The respondent, engaged in providing Life Insurance Service, was found to offer taxable, non-taxable, and exempted services. The Tribunal held that the respondent was not entitled to input credit for services under the Traditional Golden Year Plan as it was exempted. However, the demand raised for a specific period was considered time-barred due to the respondent's genuine belief in availing Cenvat credit even for exempted services. Consequently, no penalty was imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.The appellant contested the Tribunal's decision on the limitation period, arguing that the respondent's failure to declare the value of exempted services in their returns indicated an intent to evade duty. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent acted in good faith, supported by industry-wide practices and communications with tax authorities. The Tribunal's detailed examination concluded that there was no intent to evade service tax, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.The Tribunal's order highlighted the respondent's genuine belief regarding Cenvat credit entitlement and lack of intent to evade taxes. The appellant's argument based on non-declaration of values and audit discovery was refuted, emphasizing the industry's common understanding. The Tribunal's factual finding of no intent to evade tax was deemed valid, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as it did not raise any substantial legal question.In conclusion, the appeal challenging the order regarding the extended period for demands under the Finance Act, 1994 and Central Excise Act, 1944 was dismissed by the High Court. The judgment emphasized the respondent's genuine belief, industry practices, and lack of intent to evade taxes as key factors in the decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
