TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med amount, under Section 75 of the Act, ibid. (ii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) upon the party under Section 77(1) (c) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) upon the party under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for having contravened the provisions of Section 70 of the Act read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. (iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs.19,01,397/-(Rs. Nineteen Lakhs One Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Seven Only) upon the party under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the party has the option to pay 25% of the penalty payable, provided they pay the Service Tax, interest and penalty, imposed within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order." 2.1 Appellant is registered with the Department with Service Tax Registration No.AADFI4560LSD001 and is engaged in providing taxable services such as Rent-a-Cab Services etc. falling under as defined under Section 65B(44) of the Act read with Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 On the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department, it was ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance Act, 1994 for contravention of provisions of Rules 5A(2) of the Service. Tax Rules, 1994" 2.7 The said show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2024 referred in para 1 above. 2.8 Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been disposed of as per the impugned order. 2.9 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 In the matter appellant filed a request for adjournment, however, I find that the matter is in very narrow compass and can be proceeded with even without the assistance of the Counsel of the appellant. 3.2 I have heard Smt Chitra Srivastava, Authorized Representative for the revenue who reiterates the findings recorded in the orders of the lower authorities. 4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 For rejecting the appeal of the appellant, impugned order records the following findings:- "5.3 I note that the appellant in the Grounds of Appeal has contended that the appellant was registered with the department for providing Rent-a-cab service. That the impugned order is not legally tenabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014 to September 2014. There are no details available of the ST-3 for the second half year i.e. for the period October 2014 to March 2015. The perusal of ST-3 submitted by the appellant reveals that they have filed 'Nil' return. Against serial no. All and A12, the appellant has shown that they have neither availed any benefit of exemption notification nor abatement. However the perusal of invoices reveal that the same has been issued under abatement. Thus there is contradiction of facts. In such case filing of ST-3 return would not come to rescue to the one who has furnished incomplete / false information therein. 5.7 I further note that the appellant has abstained from filing the ST-3 return for the period Oct 2014 to Mar 2015. Needless to mention the importance of filing statutory ST-3 returns by the one liable to pay service tax which sets the stage for important factors viz reverse charge, abatement, exemption etc. Besides it is also important in computation of time period for issuance of notice. The structure of ST-3 Return has been devised to cover all aspects of taxability and is crucial for reporting taxable services, claiming exemptions, and availing input....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 customs duty by misutilizing the facility available to them under Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997" 22. We are not persuaded to agree that this observation by the Commissioner, unfounded on any material fact or evidence, points to a finding of collusion or suppression or misstatement. The use of the word "willful" introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of the appellant by gauging its actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (pp 1599) defines "willful" in the following manner :- "Willful. Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate. Intending the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 evade the payment of duty. It has been observed : „...Therefore, in order to attract the proviso to Section 11-A(1) it must be alleged in the show-cause notice that the duty of excise had not been levied or paid by reason of fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact on the part of the assessee or by reason of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duties by such person or his agent. There is no such averment to be found in the show cause notice. There is no averment that the duty of excise had been intentionally evaded or that fraud or collusion had been practiced or that the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt has in the case of Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd [Order dated 14.07.2025 Civil Appeal Nos. 3816-3817 of 2025] observed as follows: "9. In the present case, the disputed period is from 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014. However, the show cause notice was issued only on 28.07.2017, demanding a sum of Rs.2,07,29,576/- towards service tax, by invoking the extended period of limitation. Under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, a show cause notice must ordinarily be issued within one year from the relevant date. The proviso to section 73(1) allows an extended period of up to five years only where the nonpayment or short payment of service tax is due to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules, with an intent to evade payment of service tax. 9.1. It is evident from the communication dated 02.12.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III, directing the appellant to furnish the documents relating to their activities, that the department was already aware of the nature of the appellant's operations as early as in 2013. Despite such awareness, the department issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Tribunal came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the appellant had manufactured the goods without informing the central excise authorities and had been removing these without payment of duty, these would have to be taken to attract the mischief of the provisions of Rule 9(2) and the longer period of limitation was available. But the Tribunal reduced the penalty. Counsel for the appellant contended before us that in view of the trade notices which were referred to by the Tribunal, there is scope for believing that agarbatis were entitled to exemption and if that is so, then there is enough scope for believing that there was no need of taking out a licence under Rule 174 of the said Rules and also that there was no need of paying duty at the time of removal of dhoop sticks, etc. Counsel further submitted that in any event apart from the fact that no licence had been taken and for which no licence was required because the whole duty was exempt in view of Notification No.111 of 1978, referred to hereinbefore, and in view of the fact that there was scope for believing that it was exempt under Schedule annexed to the first notification i.e. No.55 of 1975, being handicrafts, the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all lie to this Court from any order passed by the appellate tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purpose of assessment. Therefore, in this appeal, we have to examine the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal. For the reasons indicated above, the Tribunal was in error in applying the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. There were no materials from which it could be inferred or established that the duty of excise had not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the Rules made thereunder. The Tribunal in the appellate order has, however, reduced the penalty to Rs 5000 and had also upheld the order of the confiscation of the goods. In view of the fact that the claim of the Revenue is not sustainable beyond a period of six months on the ground that these dhoop sticks, etc. were not handicrafts entitled to exemption, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew to evade payment of duty. Their explanation that it was only on the basis of their interpretation that the value of the exempted goods were not required to be included that they did not include the value of the exempted goods which they manufactured at the relevant time and falling under T.I. 68 is acceptable in the facts of that case. The departmental authorities were in full knowledge of the facts about manufacture of all the goods manufactured by them when the declaration was filed by the appellants. That they did not include the value of the product other than those falling under T.I. 14-E manufactured by the appellants has to be taken to be within the knowledge of the authorities. They could have taken corrective action in time. We therefore find there was no warrant in invoking longer time-limit beyond six months available for raising the demand. So far as the demand for the period within six months reckoned from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice is concerned, we observe that the appellants' case is that value of the goods under T.I. 68 was not required to be included but the Revenue's plea is that only value of the specified goods under Notifications Nos. 71/7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [1995 Supp (3) SCC 462] "4. Section 11-A empowers the Department to reopen proceedings if the levy has been short-levied or not levied within six months from the relevant date. But the proviso carves out an exception and permits the authority to exercise this power within five years from the relevant date in the circumstances mentioned in the proviso, one of it being suppression of facts. The meaning of the word both in law and even otherwise is well known. In normal understanding it is not different that what is explained in various dictionaries unless of course the context in which it has been used indicates otherwise. A perusal of the proviso indicates that it has been used in company of such strong words as fraud, collusion or wilful default. Infact it is the mildest expression used in the proviso. Yet the surroundings in which it has been used it has to be construed strictly. It does not mean any omission. The act must be deliberate. In taxation, it can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape from payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not tha....