2019 (1) TMI 1305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... undertaken by the assessee are covered by the scope of the definition of "Business Auxiliary Service" as a taxable service, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 21.04.2011 was issued proposing to demand service tax under Business Auxiliary Service along with interest and various penalties. SCN dated 21.04.2011 categorically mentions that the appellant had not even obtained the service tax registration and that the appellant had even contravened the provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act,1994 read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, whereby the appellant had not filed the periodical ST-3 returns. The SCN also mentions that they had pursued simultaneously and separately with Conybio who, vide letters dated 12.10.2010 and 19.10.2010 revea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd ruled in favour of Revenue. But however, on limitation we are allowing the assessee's appeal on the consideration that the issue in dispute was mired in litigation and was put to rest only by the Tribunal decision in Charanjeet Singh Khanuja (supra) on 09.06.2005 in a batch of 38 appeals. While confirming that the activity involved would fall within the scope of BAS, the Tribunal however set aside the longer period of limitation, on the following grounds: "16. Another plea raised in these appeals is regarding limitation. It is the contention of the assessees that there was absolutely no suppression or mis-statement of facts or deliberate contravention of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 or of the Rules made thereunder with inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) when there is scope for doubt in the mind of an assessee on a particular issue, the longer limitation period, under proviso to Section 11A(1)cannot be invoked and in our view, the ratio of this judgement of the Apex Court is applicable to the facts of these cases. Therefore, the longer limitation period of 5 years under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 would not be invokable and duty can be demanded only for normal limitation period of one year from the relevant date." 5.2 We further find that on identical dispute, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Principal Commr. of GST & C.EX, Chennai Vs. C. Kamalakannan - 2018 (18) GSTL 589 (Mad.) r....