TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t they are liable to pay service tax, for the services rendered by them to the Appellant. The department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 16.03.2011, demanding service tax of Rs. 1,42,36,213/- along with interest and penalty, for the period April 2008 to )7.05.2009. The Notice was adjudicated and the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty equivalent to service tax was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 02.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant filed the present appeal. It is a settled principle of law that extended period of limitation not invocable in case the assesse is on a bonfide belief that tax is not payable by them. In this case they paid the service tax, even thoug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bang) 5. The Ld. A.R. for the department reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. We observe that there was no service tax liability on the Appellant in this case as a receiver of service, since the service provider Newsco had an office in Mumbai. he department approached Newsco to ascertain whether they have paid service tax on this transaction. When it came to light that Newsco has not paid service tax, the department issued Show Cause Notice dated 16.03.211 demanding service tax from the Appellant. Even though there was no liability on the Appellant, they deposited the service tax along with interest, to put the issue at rest and informed the department vide let....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing decisions cited by the Appellant: 9. In the case of Orissa Bridge & Construction Corporation Ltd Vs CCE, Bhubaneshwar, 2011 (264) ELT 14 (SC), it has been held as under: "4. The second point on which the show cause notice was contested by the appellant was on the point of limitation. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that appellant's activities were detected by the revenue on 24-8-1987 and show cause notice was issued on 4th December, 1989. 5. On the previous date of hearing, we adjourned this case to enable the counsel for the revenue to seek instructions as to why the show cause notice was issued after two years and 4 months approximately of the inspection carried out by the authorities. Counsel appearing fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....situation, although, the period of demand was within 5 years from the date of show cause notice, the Tribunal held the plea of limitation would sustain. In doing so, among other citations, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment in the case of Mopeds India Ltd. [1991 (56) E.L.T. 241 (Tribunal)] in which the department had knowledge in October, 1975. The show cause notice was issued in January, 1977. The period of delay in the cited case is identical to the period of delay in the facts before us. Accepting the arguments that the fabrication was before the eyes of the general public and also following the ratio in the case of J.S.L. Industries, wherein, identical delay was noticed by the Tribunal, we hold that in the present case, the plea of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not justified in invoking extended period of limitation. Following the precedent decision in the case of Orissa Bridge & Construction Corpn. Ltd. (Supra) I hold that facts of this case are similar to the facts of the said case and that extended period of limitation is not invokable. 16. With these terms appeals are disposed of with consequential relief if any." 12. In the case of Lovely Food Industries Vs CCE, Cochi, 2006 (195) ELT 90 (Tri - Bang), it has been held as under: "4 We have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the citations. The Show Cause Notice was issued after a lapse of 3 years. The department gathered all the information on their visit to the factory on 5-11-1999. The records were ....