2025 (7) TMI 636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3/-, invoking extended period during the period 2007-08 to 2012-13, on the tyre retreading process the appellants undertake for their clients, under the Heading Management, Maintenance or Repair Service as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzg) of Finance Act, 1994; the proposals in the show cause notice were confirmed along with equal penalty vide the impugned order dated 23.03.2015. Hence, this appeal. 2. Shri Kanwaldeep Singh Gujral, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there was a general confusion in the industry as to whether the retreading of tyres amounted to manufacture or service; retreaded or used pneumatic tyres of rubber solid or cushion tyres, tyres treads and tyres flaps of rubber finds an entry in the Central Excis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants have promptly registered themselves and started paying service tax; under the circumstances, extended period cannot be invoked as no ingredient to do so are present in the instant case. He further submits that learned Commissioner has dismissed their plea on bona fide intent based on their letter dated 19.09.2006 for the reason that the original copy of the letter is not readily available with the Department. He submits that they cannot be held responsible for the reason that the letter is not available with the Department; extended period cannot be invoked. He relies on the following cases : * Dophine Detective Agency v/s Commr of C EX Bangalore. Reported as 2006 (4) S.T.R. 25 Tri- BANG) * Commr. of S.T. Bangalore v/s Karna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id letter is not available in the official records is bad in law. We find that the learned Counsel for the appellants could demonstrate the official receipt of the letter. Revenue has sat over the letter for 06 long years and proceeded to invoke extended period. We find that the same is not tenable. On the other hand, Department could not produce any evidence to substantiate the allegation of fraud, suppression, collusion, mis- declaration etc. with intent to evade payment of duty so as to invoke extended period. Under these circumstances, we find that the appellants have demonstrated the bona fide reasons for not discharging service tax during the impugned period. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Revenue has not made out an....