TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.21,22,551/- on erection and commissioning services for the period October 2008 to November 2009; non-payment of service tax of Rs.3,30,032/- on commission received during the period from 2004-05 to 2006 -07 (Business Auxiliary Services) and short payment of service tax of Rs.3,08,635/- on erection and commission services for the period April 2006 to March 2008. On being pointed out, the appellant paid the entire service tax liability with appropriate interest immediately during the audit of the appellant. 3. However, a Show Cause Notice No.320/2010 dated 23.04.2010, invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act came to be issued demanding a total service tax of Rs.27,61,218/- and interest of Rs.4,87,047/- and proposing to adjust the service tax and interest that already stood paid before the issuance of Show Cause Notice. Consequent to the reply filed by the appellant, after due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand of service tax on BAS for the period to prior to 09.07.2004 to the tune of Rs.1,68,731/- along with interest of Rs.1,22,656/- on the finding that the Notification No.13/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 which exempte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 03.10.2007, and the decisions in Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013, (288) ELT 161 (SC), Final order No.43222&41333/2025 dated 14.11.2025 in the case of Tulsyan NEC Ltd. Vs. CCE, Final order No.41081/2025 dated 30.09.2025 in the case of San Media Ld. Vs. CCE, Final Order No.40025/2025 dated 07.01.2025 in the case of Madhangi Enterprises Vs. CST, Asipac Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST, 2025 (6) TMI 1355 CESTAT - Bangalore, Susee Autotech Sales and Services Vs. CCE, 2023 (8) TMI 49 CESTAT - Chennai, Continental Foundation Vs. CCE 2007 (216) ELT 177 SC, 1997 (94) ELT 89 SC and 2021 (12) TI 1014 CES - KOL. 5. Ms. Rajini Menon, Ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the Respondent reiterated the findings of the Ld. Appellate Authority. 6. Heard both sides. Perused the appeal records and decisions relied upon. 7. The sole issue that arises for determination is whether the demand invoking the extended period of limitation and the attendant demand of interest and penalties imposed were tenable. 8. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to refer to certain Judgements of the Apex Court delineating the circumstances in which the extended period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....next set of words 'contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or Rules' are again qualified by the immediately following words 'with intent to evade payment of duty.' Therefore, there cannot be suppression or mis-statement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitute a permissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section 11A. Mis-statement of fact must be wilful." 11. Again, in Uniworth Textiles Ltd v. CCE, Raipur, 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC), the Apex Court after observing in para 12 that "The conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is equivalent to collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts is, in our opinion, untenable. If that were to be true, we fail to understand which form of non-payment would amount to ordinary default? Construing mere non-payment as any of the three categories contemplated by the proviso would leave no situation for which, a limitation period of six months may apply. In our opinion, the main body of the Section, in fact, contemplates ordinary default in payment of duties and leaves cases of collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts, a smaller, specific and more serious niche, to the proviso. Therefore, so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, needlessly the SCN has invoked the extended period of limitation sans any evidence of ingredients necessary to invoke the same as is required under section 73(4), thereby leading to this pending litigation over a decade. 14. At this juncture, it would be profitable to notice the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore v. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd, 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar), wherein it has been held as under: "2. Facts are not in dispute. The assessee has paid both the service tax and interest for delayed payments before issue of show cause notice under the Act. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 categorically states, after the payment of service tax and interest is made and the said information is furnished to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice under sub-sec. (1) in respect of the amount so paid. Therefore, authorities have no authority to initiate proceedings for recovery of penalty under Sec. 76 of the Act. 3. Unfortunately the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority seem to think. If an assessee does not pay th....