TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10, the SIV wing of the Service Tax Commissionerate, Kolkata scrutinized the records of the appellant such as Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and ST-3 returns. On scrutiny, it was pointed out vide letter dated 18.12.2010 that out there was a short payment of service tax to the tune of Rs.1,43,512/- pertaining to the period 2009-10. Out of this short payment, the appellant made payment of Rs. 1,38,955/- and they were liable to the differential amount of Rs. 4,557/- along with interest. The Department had further pointed out in the same said letter that as per ST-3 Returns and CENVAT documents submitted by the appellant for the period April 2010 to September,2010 there was a short payment of service tax of Rs.7906/-. 2. The SIV wing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the adjudicating authority observed that though the said amount is inadmissible but no separate recovery of the same is required since the demand of service tax of Rs. 54,40,037/- is inclusive of the said amount of Rs. 6,58,032/-. Accordingly, no separate penalty was imposed on this amount of Rs. 6,58,032/- in terms of Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 . 3.2. Being aggrieved against the impugned order, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 4. The appellant has not contested the demand on merits. They have contested the demand only on the ground of limitation. It is the submission of the appellant that the SIV wing has scrutinized all the documents such as Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and ST-3 returns for the period from 2008- 09 to 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....izing the same, the department hast arrived at the amount payable upto the end of the Financial year 2010-11. Therefore, no suppression on their part can be alleged to invoke extended period of limitation to demand service tax for the period 2010- 11. 4.3. Further, the appellant submits that the demand has been raised on the basis of the documents like Balance Sheets and profit and loss accounts, which are public documents. Thus, the SCN which is issued on the basis of the figures contained in the ST-3 Returns and Balance Sheet, there cannot be any suppression on the part of the appellant. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invocable. This observation is supported by the decisions passed in the following cases :- (i) M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he period 2007-08 (Oct'07 to March'08) to 2011-12. We observe that the appellant has not contested the issue on merits. They are contesting the demand confirmed only on the ground of limitation. 7.1. From the records submitted by the appellant we observe that in December 2010, the SIV wing of the Service Tax Commissionerate, Kolkata scrutinized the records of the appellant such as Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and ST-3 returns. On scrutiny, it was pointed out vide letter dated 18.12.2010 that that there was a short payment of service tax to the tune of Rs.1,43,512/- pertaining to the period 2009-10. Out of this short payment, they have already made payment of Rs. 1,38,955/- and they were liable to the differential amount of Rs. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised again by invoking extended period of limitation as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v Collector of Central Excise [2008(9) S.T.R. 314 (SC)]. Thus, we hold that the demand raised in the notice for the period up to 2011-12 by invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 7.4. We also observe that the demand has been raised on the basis of the documents like Balance Sheets and profit and loss accounts, which are public documents. Thus, when the SCN is issued on the basis of the figures contained in the ST-3 Returns and Balance Sheet, there cannot be any suppression on the part of the appellant. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invocable. This observation is supported by th....