2018 (11) TMI 1209

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f facts of the case are that, the assessee- Appellants, during the period under consideration, were registered as a supplier for various services and provided various services including management, maintenance or repairs services and commercial training or coaching services. They were also supplying tangible goods (helicopters) for use of its clients, but did not get registered for providing this service. The assessee- Appellants received Rs. 7,62,27,061/- towards various taxable services provided to its clients for the period Jan 2009 - sep 2009, but failed to file its ST-3 returns and availed Cenvat Credit. On 23.11.2009, a team from the anti-evasion wing of the Department visited the premises of the appellant. The anti-evasion wing found....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ces and the quantum of Service Tax paid. The adjudicating authority did not find that the assessee- Appellants had failed to discharge its liability of payment of Service Tax and interest thereon and also interest payable on wrongly availed Cenvat Credit. It was the submission of the learned counsel that they had acted bonafidely and hence extended period of limitation could not be invoked. He further submitted that thougn the Department came to know all these facts as early as on 23.11.2009, but issued the show cause notice after an inordinate delay of nearly three and a half years by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee- Appellants had, rather than showing the receipts under their respective heads in ....