2026 (1) TMI 112

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....ssistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Division-Jaunpur and reject the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of accordingly." 2.1 Appellant having PAN No.AALFP3419P was engaged in providing taxable services without getting themselves registered with the Department as required under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 On the basis of data received from the Third Party information provided by the Income Tax Department it came to the notice of the Department that during F.Y. 2016-17 the appellant had received gross amount of Rs.26,52,800/- against Sale of Service, but failed to discharge their tax liability properly. 2.3 Accordingly the appellant were requested to provide relevant / financial documents for the period FY 2016-17 in order to ascertain their exact tax liability. In response, appellant provided copy of Balance Sheet and ITR only. In absence of proper documentary evidences/information /data, no exemption /abatement has been taken into account and quantification of the Service Tax liability was done on the basis of information available with the Department. It was observed that the appellant had received t....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....terates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Impugned order records as follows:- "4.3 I find that during the course of personal hearing held on 02.01.2023 before the adjudicating authority, Shri Rajeev Singh (Partner) submitted that he in registered civil contractor and they have supplied goods only & he has no other income except supply of goods. However, they failed to provide any documents viz copies of bills (purchase and sale), VAT returns to substantiate their claim that they have supplied goods only. 4.4 The appellant have submitted the copy of ITR for the Assessment Year 2017-18 alongwith the copy of Form 26AS for FY 2016-17. They have contended in their ground of appeal that their nature of work was related to single unit residential house not meant for commercial purpose which is specifically exempted vide Entry No 14 of Mega Notification 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. In this regard, they have submitted an agreement entered between Mahesh Yadav resident of Miyapur, Jaunpur for construction of his house for ground floor &....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....x) at the specified rate on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed. Thus, I hold that the appellant is liable to pay service tax of Rs 3,97,920/-as quantified in the SCN on Rs 26,52,800/- as sale of services as per third party data supplied by the Income Tax Department. 4.9 On examining the facts of the instant case in terms of Section 75 of the Act. 1 find that where any amount is payable as tax but not paid/paid belatedly, it results in financial loss to the exchequer and corresponding financial gain to the assessee. Therefore, if the Service Tax has been paid beyond the due date, interest is chargeable in terms of statutory provisions mentioned above. Therefore, 1 find that in this case, the demand/ recovery of interest on Service Tax not paid by the appellant, has correctly been ordered by the Adjudicating Authority. 4.10 I find that under self assessment procedure prescribed under the statute, the appellant were required to assess & pay their Service Tax liability correctly....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

.... above agreement is enough to establish that appellant undertaken the work of construction of single unit for Shri Mahesh Yadav and the services provided in respect of construction of single house are exempt from payment of service tax under Notification No.25/2012-ST. 4.5 Even if the above is not admissible, this agreement definitely creates a bonafide belief for none payment of service tax in respect of these services provided in view of this bonafide belief as is executed with the appellant, the demand could not have been made by invoking extended period of limitation, as there cannot be any suppression, mis-statement with intend to evade payment of service tax. 4.6 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)] has held as follows:- "21. The Revenue contended that of the three categories, the conduct of the appellant falls under the case of "willful misstatement" and pointed to the use of the word "misutilizing" in the following statement found in the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Raipur in furtherance of its claim : "The noticee procured 742.51 kl of furnace oil valued at Rs. 54,57,357/- without payment of ....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....orm of mala fide lies on the shoulders of the one alleging it. This Court observed in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. - (2005) 8 SCC 760 that "it cannot be overlooked that burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demand proof of a high order of credibility." 25. Moreover, this Court, through a catena of decisions, has held that the proviso to Section 28 of the Act finds application only when specific and explicit averments challenging the fides of the conduct of the assessee are made in the show cause notice, a requirement that the show cause notice in the present case fails to meet. In Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Limited and Ors. (supra), this Court made the following observations : "21. This Court while interpreting Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act in Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Ltd. (supra) has observed that in order to attract the proviso to Section 11-A(1) it must be shown that the excise duty escaped by reason of fraud, collusion or willful misstatement of suppression of fact with intent to....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....cord displays a willful default on the part of the appellant, we hold that the extended period of limitation under the said provision could not be invoked against the appellant." 4.7 In the following decisions also it has been held that extended period of limitation could not have been invoked for making the demand when the person entertained a bonafide belief about non taxable nature or exempted nature of the services provided. ⮚ Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs CCE, Meerut 2025 (188) ELT 149; ⮚ Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. Vs UOI 2014 (36) STR 37; ⮚ CCE, Chennai Vs Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2007 (211) ELT 193; 4.8 In view of the above, I find that demand is hit by limitation and the findings recorded in the impugned order in this regard cannot stand in the eyes of law. Impugned order is set aside. 5.1 Appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) ============= Document 1 à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ à¤—à¥ˆà¤° à¤¨à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤• Rs. 100 à¤à¤• à¤¸à¥Œ à¤°à¥à¤ªà¤¯à¥‡ ONE à¤°à¥. 100 HUNDRED RUPEES à¤à¤....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Previous Next

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

2026 (1) TMI 112