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>Successful appeal due to time-barred demand without willful fraud or suppression. Emphasis on disclosure in tax matters.</h1> <h3>M/s North Eastern Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCEx. & S. Tax, Dibrugarh</h3> M/s North Eastern Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCEx. & S. Tax, Dibrugarh - TMI Issues:Appeal against demand of service tax, irregular availment of CENVAT credit, imposition of penalty, limitation on recovery of credit amount, intention to evade payment of service tax.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in taxable services, faced a demand of service tax, interest, and penalty due to irregular availment of CENVAT credit on materials supplied under separate contracts. The appellant contested the demand primarily on the grounds of limitation, arguing that the details were disclosed in service tax returns and there was no intent to evade tax. The appellant relied on tribunal decisions emphasizing disclosure of credit details and absence of suppression to support their case. The Ld. Advocate argued that since the credit was voluntarily reversed upon realization of ineligibility, charging interest was unwarranted. The Revenue, however, maintained that the appellant was not entitled to the credit and should repay the utilized amount along with interest. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not contest the demand on merits but solely on limitation. It observed that the SCN lacked evidence of willful fraud or suppression to justify invoking an extended limitation period.The Tribunal referenced a previous case to highlight that mere non-disclosure of specific details, not required by statutory provisions, does not constitute suppression or concealment. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was time-barred due to lack of evidence supporting willful fraud or suppression. Consequently, the impugned demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with appropriate relief as per the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of statutory requirements for disclosure and the absence of evidence to support allegations of intentional evasion. The decision underscored the significance of adherence to legal provisions and the burden of proof in establishing fraudulent intent in tax matters.
TaxTMI 