AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y engaged in Restaurant-cum-Bar services. The Appellant was registered with Commercial Taxes Department and had been granted Bar License by State Excise Department on 14.07.2010 for providing services in relation to Restaurant-cum-Bar services. The appellant had installed air conditioner in its premises from 14.07.2010. The license granted to Appellant's Restaurant & Bar Services was renewed regularly for the year 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Department alleged that as there was air conditioning facility, the restaurant service was exigible to service tax. A show cause notice dated 16.03.2016 was issued, which was adjudicated. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order-in-original. The present appeal is filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No 13(RK)ST/JPR/2017-18 dated 25.01.2018. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Assistant Commissioner did not consider the statement dated 28.12.2012 of the appellant that the restaurant service without air conditioning facility, is not liable to service tax. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant vide his statement dated 28.12.2012, had submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing AC facility was mandatory as per the provisions of the State Excise Department. It was on the basis of fullfilling this minimum requirement set out under the State excise policy that the appellant's excise license was renewed. 4.2 Learned Authorized Representative further submitted that the appellant had not obtained the Service Tax Registration from May, 2011 to March, 2015, whereas they were required to take the registration as they were to pay the service tax. Therefore, they are liable to pay penalty under Finance Act, 1994. In view of the above, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Authorized Representative for the Department and have perused the records of the case. 6. The admitted facts of the case are as follows:- (i) Appellant was providing Restaurant Cum Bar Services. (ii) Installed air conditioning system in 2010 (iii) Appellant had been issued State Excise registration w.e.f 14.07.2010 (iv) Grant of State Excise License and its renewal is based on turnover and having air-conditioning facility (v) Appellant's Restaurant Bar License w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de letter dated 09.09.2013 informed that no such communication had been made by the appellant. The State Excise Department also informed that the facts mentioned in their application for licence were duly verified by the Committee comprising Departmental Officers and Excise Inspector and the premises is routinely checked from time to time. From this, it is clear that the statement made by the appellant on 28.12.2012 was a mere cover to avoid any service tax liability and there is no substantive proof in support thereof. On the contrary, it is on record that in the initial application made by the appellant on 23.6.2010 for availing the liquor licence the restaurant had air conditioning facility. There is nothing to rebut this documentary evidence and therefore the case of the appellant is not acceptable. 10. We find that in similar facts and circumstances in the case of Gurukripa Yuvraj Veg. & Non Veg. Restaurant vs. Commissioner and Additional Director General, Jaipur, wherein the proprietor was the same, Sh. Charan Pal Singh, this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 51093 of 2023 has decided the matter. The relevant paras are reproduced hereinafter:- "8. We also find that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions of the license issued by the State Excise Department otherwise to inform them regarding changes made by them at the time of shifting of Air Conditioner facility. I therefore, find no infirmity in the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in the matter." 10. On pure appreciation of evidence and material on record, we conclude that the extended period of limitation is clearly applicable as the appellant suppressed the correct fact with regard to the facility of AC being available at the restaurant and mis-represented and misguided the department with the sole intent to evade payment of duty. The intention to evade duty is writ large in the conduct of the appellant and it cannot be said to be a case of bonafide belief of non liability of service tax or a case of ignorance of service tax liability. For the said reasons, penalty under section 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are also confirmed. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to an order in appeal No. 352(CRM)/ST/JPR/2019 dated 03.10.2019 in their own case relating to the subsequent period from April 2015 to June 2017 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the statement....