TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dated 25th June, 2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Zonal Branch, Kolkata in Service Tax Appeal No.ST/111/2009-DB. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration :- a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter back for limited purpose of calculation of service tax leviable for normal period of limitation on cum tax basis? We have heard Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Abhrotosh Majumder, learned senior Counsel for the respondent. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the extended period of limitation could have been invoked by the appellant department f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Service" in respect of 'apex office charges' charged from subsidiary companies and they placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai- I vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited reported in 2007 (211) E.L.T. 193 (SC) for the proposition that there can be no presumption that public sector undertakings like the respondent have any intention to evade payment of duty. They also relied on other decisions of the Tribunal to support the said contention. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the stand taken by the respondent and confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice. Challenging the same, the assessee filed appeal before the learned Tribunal. The only point whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of M/s. Jaisingh & Neelam Singh Chauhan vs. CCE, Kanpur reported 2013 (3) ECS (193) (Tri.-Del.) and M/s. Ankita Constructions vs. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 2014 (4) ECS (212 (Tri.-Del.). Learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case clearly recorded that there was no allegation of suppression made by the respondent, a public sector undertaking, with the intention to evade payment of tax. The decision in Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited was pressed into service. After we have elaborately heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the show cause notice, the reply given by the assessee and the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision in the case of Krishna Poduval (supra) cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. On facts, in the said decision the Court found that the assessee therein was guilty of suppression and, therefore, deserves no sympathy. The decision in the case of K. Madhav Kamath Brother & Co. (supra) was rendered while considering the correctness of the factual finding recorded by the learned Tribunal which was against the assessee. The Court after considering the facts noted by the learned Tribunal upheld the decision of the Tribunal wherein in was held that it is not a case of bona fide mistake. Further, in the said decision, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & W....