AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has taken registration in respect of the said service from the Department. 2.1. Scrutiny of records of the appellant revealed that the appellant has not paid appropriate service tax on the advances received by them as well as on the import of services received by them on reverse charge mechanism (RCM) basis. 2.2. On the basis of these observations, a Show Cause Notice dated 16.10.2015 was issued to the appellant demanding Service Tax totally amounting to Rs.2,41,78,784/- for the period 2010-11 to 2013-14. 2.3. After due process, the said notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 19.01.2017 and the demands of Service Tax raised therein have been confirmed, along with interest and penalties. 2.4. Aggrieved by the confirmation of demands of Service Tax, along with interest and penalty thereon, the appellant filed this appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that they have taken refundable loan from various parties including from its director and relatives of the director. He submits that the loans taken from the parties other than its director and relatives of the director are interest bearing loans; it is submitted that all s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d confirmed for the period 2010-11 to 2012-13 while the Show Cause Notice was issued on 16.10.2015; that the normal period of limitation is 18 months from the relevant date i.e. from 25.04.2013 and the period of 18 months end on 25.10.2014, whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued 16.10.2015. Thus, the appellant points out that the entire demand has been raised and confirmed beyond the normal period of limitation. 5.1. In this context, the appellant has made the submission that they were regular in furnishing the returns and payment of tax; furthermore, on the basis of scrutiny of returns and records, two Show Cause Notices being C. Nos. V (15)56/ST/Adjn/D-I/Kol/11, dated 30.11.2012 and V (15)264/ST-ADJN/COMMR/12/37168, dated 07-01-14 were issued and culminated into Order-in-Original No. 30/COMM/ST/KOL/2014-15, dated 17-06-2014 and Order-in -Original No. 04/COMMR/ST-1/KOL/2015-16, dated 31-07-2015. Therefore, the appellant has taken the stand that their activity is well within the knowledge of the Department and therefore the third Show Cause Notice which is culminated into the impugned order under challenge cannot be issued by invoking the larger period of limitation. The appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vance'. We find that the appellant paid interest on such loans and deducted and deposited TDS on interest amount as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It is seen from the records that the appellant has submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate certifying the loan taken by them during the period 2010-11 to 2012-13, year-wise statement of loans, TDS Certificates, bank statement regarding receipt and payment of the loans and loan agreements. For ready reference, copy of the said CA Certificate is extracted below: 8.2. It is evident from the documents submitted by the appellant that the said amount has been recorded in the 'Advance Ledger' as refundable loan and not advances received against provision of any taxable service. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding such refundable advance as 'advance towards provision of the service' for confirming the said demand. Consequently, we set aside the demand of Service Tax confirmed on this issue. 9. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.16,44,878/- under Revers Charge Mechanism on import of service, we observe that the whole exercise is revenue neutral. We agree with the submission ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew that the third Show Cause Notice on the same issue cannot be issued by invoking the larger period of limitation, in terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Versus Collector of Central Excise, AP [ 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C)] wherein it has been held that the allegation of suppression and invocation of larger period cannot be sustained when the first and second show cause notices were issued on the same issue and all relevant fact were well within the knowledge of the authorities. Considering the above, we hold that the whole demand is barred by limitation and hence not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the demands confirmed in the impugned order on the ground of limitation also. 11. As the demands of Service Tax against the appellant do not survive, we do not find any reason to sustain the demands of interest and imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the same are set aside. 11.1. In the instant case, it is observed that although the appellant has filed S.T.-3 Returns, they have filed the same belatedly. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the imposit....