AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws, Live Programmes and Movie Channels etc. For payment of service tax in respect of such taxable service and for compliance with the Finance Act, 1994, he had registered himself with the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities vide Service Registration No. ADMPN0725GST001. On the basis of third-party data received from the Income Tax department reflecting therein the value of turnover as declared in Income Tax returns filed by the appellant during the period 2015-16 and the taxable value of services declared in the ST-3 returns filed with the Service Tax Department, an enquiry was conducted on the difference in the value of services shown in these two records. Based on such differences in the gross value provided, the Department came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to discharge the service tax liability of Rs.2,87,576/- on the differential value of services arrived at by them at Rs.19,83,285/- relating to the period April, 2015 to March, 2016 which was not declared to the Service Tax authorities. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice (SCN) F. No. CGST/R-III/96/SCN-TPD/Nitnaware/2020/1177 dated 12.2020 was issued demanding service tax of Rs.2,87,576/- along with interest an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Central Excise may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). (3A) An appeal shall be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of such adjudicating authority, made on and after the Finance Bill, 2012 receives the assent of the President, relating to service tax, interest or penalty under this Chapter : Provided that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. SECTION 86. Appeals to Appellate Tribunal. - (1) Save as otherwise provided herein an assessee aggrieved by an order passed by a Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise under section 73 or section 83A by a Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under section 85, may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order within three months of the date of receipt of the order. xxx xxx xxx xxx (7) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, in hearing the appeals and making orders und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eed with the adjudication ex parte on the basis of evidence available on records. xxx xxx xxx xxx 8. The show cause notice was issued to the Noticee on the premise that they had not declared the true and correct value of the taxable services provided by them in the ST-3 Returns for the Year 2015-16. I find that as per the TDS/ITR data for the year 2015-16, as received from the Income Tax Department, the Noticee had received total amount of Rs.19,83,285/- as consideration/income towards provision of taxable services but they had not declared this taxable value in the ST-3 returns filed by them for the said period. Thus, the Noticee had declared their taxable value short by Rs.19,83,285/- resulting in non-payment/evasion of service tax of Rs.2,87,576/- (ST-Rs.2,77,659/- + SBC-Rs.9916/-) they were legally required to pay to the government exchequer in terms of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Noticee, I find, have not made any submissions in respect of the demand for service tax as above. In fact, they did not even submit any reply to the show cause notice in spite of ample time and opportunities having been off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al within the aforesaid period of 60 days, He can allow it to be presented within a further period of the 30 days. The delay in the instant case is 34 days. 5. I have carefully gone through the application. The legal provisions are very clear. Commissioner Appeals can condone the delay of 30 days only. Considering the above, I reject the application for condonation of delay. I also reject the appeal without going into the merits of the issue. I find support by the order of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s Rane NSK Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd. reported vide 2019 [(369 ELT 307 (Madras)]." 5.4 From the records, I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had given an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, and the representative of the appellant Shri Sujit Deulkar, Chartered Accountant had appeared before him and explained the case. It has also been submitted by the appellant in the appeal filed before the Tribunal, that the appellant could not respond to show cause notice as he was undergoing heart surgery at that point of time. Further, the appellant has also stated that he had not filed the ST-3 return during the year 2015-16 on the assumption that si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs (CBIC) had considered the appropriate action to be taken by the field formations, in similar situation as the one referred in this case and issued instructions dated 26.10.2021, which is extracted and given below: "Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs *** New Delhi dated 26.10.2021 Subject : Indiscreet Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued by Service Tax Authorities - Reg. Representations have been received from various trade bodies and associations regarding instances of indiscriminate issuance of demand notices by the field formations on the basis of ITR-TDS data received from Income Tax Department. 2. In this regard, the undersigned is directed to inform that CBIC vide instructions dated 1-4-2021 and 23-4-2021 issued vide F. No. 137/ 472020ST, has directed the field formations that while analysing ITR-TDS data received from Income Tax, a reconciliation statement has to be sought from the taxpayer for the difference and whether the service income earned by them for the corresponding period is attributable to any of the negative list serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tute, do not have the power to condone the delay beyond what is prescribed in the statute. The relevant paragraph in the said judgement is extracted below: "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appellate authority to ente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. d) No law was laid down by the Supreme Court that even though the statue prescribed a particular period of limitation, the (Supreme Court) can direct condonation as that would render a specific provision providing for limitation rather otiose." In view of the above, it could be concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1962 shall not be applicable to the statute(s), where specific provisions have been made for filing of appeal within the prescribed time frame; and neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the Tribunal, being the creatures under the statute, have been vested with any jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the time line prescribed in the statute. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), despite the fact that natural justice have not been fully carried out in the quasi-judicial process in the present case. 8.3 In this regard, I also find that on the subject of hearing the appeals and making orders in matters relating to service tax, the Appellate Tribunal shall exercise the same powers and follow the same....