2024 (2) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....recovered from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. A reply dated 15.07.2022 was filed to the show cause notice. The original adjudicating authority passed the order-in-original 02.08.2022 confirming entire demand with penalty. The appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeal) was rejected and the present appeal is against the impugned order. 3. The Learned Counsel submitted that Tribunal may appreciate that the impugned order affirmed by the appellant authority is based on incorrect factual matrix and against the settled position of law. As per the prevailing law, the demand of service tax can be made only for 30 months from the relevant date and extended period of limitation can be invoked only when fraud, collusion, mis-statement, suppression of facts; or contravention of any of the provisions of the law, with an intent to evade payment of service tax exists. In this matter, there is no such reason exists as envisaged for application of extended period of limitation. It has been settled in the various judgments of higher judicial fora including the Tribunal that when facts are shown/reflected in financial st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mount charged for the transportation of goods on a consignment transported in a single carriage does not exceed one thousand five hundred rupees. In this regard the appellant made averment in the reply to the notice as well as in appeal memo but no finding was given by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority. In this context, the learned counsel relied on the following judgements: (i) Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2006 (199) ELT 509 (Tri.-Mum); (ii) Secretary Town Hall Committee Vs. CCE -2007 (8) STR 170 (Tri.-Bang.) (iii) CCE Vs. Sikar Ex-serviceman Welfare Coop. Society Ltd. - 2006 (4) STR 213 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2006 (197) ELT 97 (Tri.-Del.) (v) Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2006 (195) ELT 284 (Tri.-Mumbai) (vi) Fibre Foils Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2005 (190) ELT 252 (Tri.- Mumbai) (vii) ITEL Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2004 (163) ELT 219 (Tri.-Bang.) 5. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that on verification of the books of accounts as produced in Tally by the appellant, a ledger in the name of carriage inward was noticed. Further verification revealed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Sr. No. Description of the taxable service Conditions (1) (2) (3) 1. Service provided to an exporter for transport of the said goods by goods transport agency in a goods carriage from any container freight station or inland container depot to the port or airport, as the case may be, from where the goods are exported; or Service provided to an exporter in relation to transport of the said goods by goods transport agency in a goods carriage directly from their place of removal, to an inland container depot, a container freight station, a port or airport, as the case may be, from where the goods are exported. The exporter shall have to produce the consignment note, by whatever name called, issued in his name. Provided that -  (a) the exemption shall be available to an exporter who , - (i) informs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory or the regional office or the head office, as the case may be, in Form EXP1 appended to this notification, before availing the said exemption ; (ii) is registered with an export prom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ind that the said notification requires the exporter availing the said exemption to file EXP-1 to intimate the Assistant Commissioner that he intends to avail the exemption from service tax under Notification No. 31/2012-ST, dated 20th June, 2012 in respect of service for transport of the said goods by road, which has been used for export of goods. Thereafter, the exporter availing the exemption is required to file the return in Form EXP2, every six months of the financial year, within fifteen days of the completion of the said sixth month. From the facts as recorded in the impugned order, it is apparent that the appellant was filing his ST-3 returns and the returns in the form EXP-2 regularly. It has been alleged in the impugned order that the appellant had submitted the EXP-2 and ST-3 returns to the Commissioner(Appeals) who has rejected the same by holding that the appellant had failed to file invoices along with the returns. In my opinion, once the EXP-2 was filed, the responsibility lies with the Department to examine/ scrutinise the returns in a timely manner, and point out any shortfall/discrepancies to the exporter/appellant. The Department never raised any the objection re....