2019 (2) TMI 599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tax registration. They had raised invoices charging service tax thereon. Upon investigation, it emerged that the appellants had defaulted in payment of service tax and filing of ST-3 returns; that they had paid service tax in September 2006, but did not file ST-3 returns for the last three years. It further emerged that appellants had paid at various points of time, total amount of Rs. 27,49,938/- between October 2005 to October 2007 and Rs. 10,30,091/- in September-October 2008. SCN was issued to appellants inter alia proposing recovery of demand of service tax liability of Rs. 1,00,54,253/- for the period April 2004 to March 2009 with interest thereon and imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In repl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lants. Therefore the demand is not sustainable. iii) Although the demand of Rs. 38,67,980/- is not sustainable as that pertained to the amount billed but not received, they are not contesting the entire demand of Rs. 87,83,385/-. They also submit that major part of the liability has already been accepted and paid by them. iv) The non-payment of service tax on the above services was only due to financial constraint. v) The invoices were issued in respect of all the billings and in which case, no suppression or misstatement can be alleged. They rely upon following case laws: (1) Steel Cast Ltd. Vs CCE Bhavnagar - 2009 (14) STR 129 (Tri- Ahmd.) which was affirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat as reported in 2011 (21) STR 500 (Guj.) (2)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dered namely, the Event Management Services, nor is there any dispute that the appellant raised invoices including service tax and even collected the same. The service in question came into statute book effective from 16.08.2002 and the SCN reveals that the appellant failed to discharge tax liability from 01.04.2004 and not even filed its service tax (ST-3) returns from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2009, the period covered under the SCN. In the above factual background therefore, to argue that there was no justification for invoking extended period of limitation, in our view, is a little too farfetched since, the appellant apparently hid everything, without even bothering to disclose even a bit, by not choosing to file ST-3. 6. Sufficient time was ....