2019 (6) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: RAMESH NAIR The issue involved is that whether the commission received as a distributor of Amway is liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. 2. Sh. S.J. Vyas Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that apart from the merit the demand is hit by limitation as for the demand for the per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....¢ Prahlad Singh-2019 4 TMI 1203 TRI DEL • Pramji Kaur-2018 TMI 962-TRI DEL 3. Sh. K.J. Kinariwala, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that on the identical issue this Tribunal has taken a view that demand for extended period will not be sustaina....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax. On considering the rival submissions on this point, we are of the view merely because the assessees did not apply for Service Tax Registration or did not file ST-3 Returns or did not declare their activities to the jurisdictional central excise authorities, it cannot be inferred that this was a wilful act with intent to evade payment of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pe 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 demand....