TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sc Income with respect to clearing charges, Display income etc., and pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity to the appellant to represent their case. The appellant should co-operate with the adjudicating authority and provide the documents on which they are relying upon. Interest and Penalty will be determined in accordance with service tax liability confirmed." 2.1 Appellant having their registered office at Near Lal Market Kalyan Kendra, Sector 37 were engaged in providing various taxable services in terms of Section 65 B (44) read with Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. They were neither registered with the department nor were they paying any service tax. 2.2 Acting on intelligence enquiries were initiated against them and they were vide letter dated 10.09.2018 and reminder dated 15.10.2018 were asked to provide copies of their financial records such as Balance Sheet, Form 26AS, Ledgers of income & details of payment of service tax et., up to June 2017. As appellant did not respond, a summon dated 15.11.2018 was issued to them. 2.3 Appellant through their Chartered Accountant, Shri Praveen Singhal in response to the summon issued, vide their letter dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cess, KKC & SBC for rendering taxable services should not be demanded and recovered from them in terms of the proviso to Section 73(1) as amended, of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017; (ii) Interest at appropriate rate, wherever applicable for delayed payments, should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017, on the Service Tax payable by them as per para I l(a) above; (iii) Late fee of Rs.1,20,000/- for the period 2014-15 (October-2014 to March-2015) to 2017-18 (upto June2017) should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 &7( C) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017 and for each default in furnishing of ST-3 Returns on or before due date as prescribed in Rule 7(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; (iv) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended read with Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017 for suppressing the facts from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....curity Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Allahabad Bench Order-2024) ⮚ Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust (CESTAT Allahabad Bench Order -October 2023) ⮚ Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Allahabad Bench Order -2023) ⮚ LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Allahabad Bench Order -26 July 2025) 3.3 Authorized representative reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 On the issue of limitation impugned order records as follows:- "9.2.1 Now coming to the core of the issue I find that the main-stay the appellant is that the demand is hit by the bar of time as the extended period of time is not liable to be invoked in the instant case as the 'proceeds were recorded in their books of account and the mistake was a bona fide mistake. In this regard, I find that it is a undisputed fact that the appellant was providing the taxable services and was receiving consideration against the same. It was the responsibility of the appellant to get themselves registered and pay due Service tax on such rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....instant case by the adjudicating authority." 4.3 We find that appellant in his submissions has just placed on record certain decisions of this bench even without stating the facts and showing how these decision are applicable in their case. Such blind reliance on some decisions without showing their applicability to facts in hand do not help the case of the appellant. In case of State of Orissa vs. Md Illiyas [2006 (1) SCC 275] Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "11. At this juncture it is desirable to consider the true, import of the word 'wilful'. An act is said to be 'wilful' if it is intentional, conscious and deliberate. (See : Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao (1989 (4) SCC 255). The expression 'Wilful' excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. It is to be noted that a wilful act does not encompass accidental, involuntary, or negligence. It must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious with full knowledge of legal consequences flowing therefrom. The expression 'wilful' means an act done with a bad purpose, with an evil motive. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See: State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (AIR 1968 SC 647) and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. (1996 (6) SCC 44). A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually decides." 4.4 In case of Manoj Bhahdur Singh [2006 (1) SCC 368] Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." *** *** *** "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 4.5 A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors., v. State of Tamil Nadu & others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533, has opined as follows:- "9. Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington V. British Railways Board - (1972) AC 877. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See: State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (AIR 1968 SC 647) and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. (1996 (6) SCC 44). A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in an Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. sCourts should no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all." 16. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd - (2003) 2 SCC 111 (vide paragraph 59), this Court observed : "It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision." 17. As held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & another vs. N.R. Vairamani & another - (AIR 2004 SC 4778), a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same judgment this Court also observed:- "Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid`s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that ....