TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m demand of interest on the amount of Service Tax mentioned at (i) under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017. (iii) I Impose penalty of Rs.3,61,397/- (Rupees Three Lakh Sixty-One Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety-Seven Only) under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for failure to pay Service Tax & suppressing the facts and contravening provisions or rules with intent to evade payment of service tax. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77(1) (C) (i)(ii) (iii) of the finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for not furnishing the information/not producing the documents/not appearing when issued with a summons before a Central Excise Officer. (v) I impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77(1) (d) of the finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for fails to pay the Service Tax electronically. (vi) I do not impose any penalty of ST-3 Returns within stipulated time and manner as per Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and read with Section 142 & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... One Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Seven Only) including Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017. (ii) The due interest on the amount of Service Tax mentioned at (i) above should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017. (iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for failure to pay Service Tax & suppressing the facts and contravening provisions or rules with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. (iv) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(C)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for not furnishing the information/ not producing the documents / not appearing when issued with a summon before a Central Excise officer. (v) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods. Out of Rs. 24,09,313/- Rs. 3,80,996/- was received in lieu of installation work and Rs. 5,25,727/- was received in lieu of commission, totalling to Rs.9,06,723/- which is below the threshold exemption limit of Rs.10 lacs and are seeking benefit of Notification No. 33/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012. 5.3 In order to support their claim the Appellant has submitted copy of invoices issued by them to Hotel Jawahar International P Ltd., NAR Indra Hotels P. Ltd., ADECCO India P. Ltd., Holisol Logistics P. Ltd., All India Radio and Blue Star Limited. 5.4 On going through the case records, I find that the Adjudication Authority failed to extend any relief to the Appellant on the finding that they had failed to submit copy of work order/agreement along with other related documents. 5.5 I also note that the Appellant has failed to submit even before me copy of work order/agreement in respect of Hotel Jawahar International P Ltd., NAR Indra Hotels P. Ltd., ADECCO India P. Ltd., Holisol Logistics P. Ltd., All India Radio and Blue Star Limited. 5.6 I further, note that the Appellant is seeking benefit of threshold limit provided under Notification No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... premises or each services; and (viii) the aggregate value of taxable services rendered by a provider of taxable service from one or more premises, does not exceed ten lakh rupees in the preceding financial year." 5.7 From the above, it is clear that the benefit of Notification No. 33/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 is subject to the fulfilment of conditions as listed above and the appellant has failed to provide documents in order to substantiate their claim regarding fulfilment of conditions mentioned at S.No. (ii) to (v) above and further, they have not provided any proof to establish that the aggregate value of taxable services provided by them during the preceding financial year i.e. F.Y. 2015-16 had not exceeded the threshold limit of Rs. Ten Lakhs. Thus, the benefit of Notification No. 33/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 cannot be extended to the Appellant." 4.3 For the year 2016-17 appellant before the adjudicated authority submitted the details of services and the sale of goods as detailed in table below:- Name of the Party Commission Installation Goods Total Hotel Jawahar International P Ltd. 0 0 37078 3707....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion scheme as the services provided by the appellant are in nature of work contract services. 4.8 Trading and Profit & Loss Account statement in the balance sheet for the year 2015-16, is reproduced below:- 4.9 On perusal of the above, it is evident that the total service turnover of the appellant was Rs.7,48,651/- which is less than the prescribed threshold exemption limit. The above fact is supported by the declaration made in the income tax return of the appellant wherein the same figure appears. Accordingly, I find merits in the submissions of the appellant that the benefit of Notification No.33/2012-ST would be available to them. 4.10 I also find that in view of the facts as above appellant was having a bonafide belief that no service tax liability on them as their turnover during the year 2016-17 was less than the prescribed exemption limit. That being so the demand made by invoking the extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. 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 "willf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal which placed the onus of providing evidence in support of bona fide conduct, by observing that "the appellants had not brought anything on record" to prove their claim of bona fide conduct, on the appellant. It is a cardinal postulate of law that the burden of proving any form 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conduct under the proviso to Section 28 of the Act lies with the Revenue; that in furtherance of the same, no specific averments find a mention in the show cause notice which is a mandatory requirement for commencement of action under the said proviso; and that nothing on record 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." 4.11 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; 4.12 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. The impugned order is set aside. 5.1 Appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 111; 18070.75 7744.61 0.00 1113 9931.44 7744.60 0.00 111 9931.44 7744.60 0.00 1115 9931.44 7744.60 0.00 111 11278.05 4833.45 0.00 111 9553.74 4094.46 0.00 1118 9553.74 4094.46 0.00 1119 1778.02 762.01 0.00 1120 1778.02 762.01 0.00 1121 1778.02 762.01 0.00 1122 1778.02 762.01 0.00 1123 2077.95 890.55 0.00 1124 2077.95 890.55 0.00 1125 2077.95 890.55 0.00 1126 2077.95 890.55 0.00 1127 1970.82 844.64 0.00 1128 25970.82 844.64 0.00 1129 1970.82 844.64 0.00 1130 26970.82 844.64 0.00 1131 2429.30 1041.13 0.00 1132 2429.30 1041.12 0.00 1133 40429.30 1041.12 0.00 1134 2429.30 1041.12 0.00 1135 1285.32 550.85 0.00 1136 31285.32 550.85 0.00 1137 1285.32 550.85 0.00 1138 1285.32 550.85 0.00 1141 28018.32 550.85 0.00 1142 1285.32 550.85 0.00 1143 45285.32 550.85 0.00 1144 1285.32 550.85 0.00 1145 14389.39 6166.88 0.00 1146 14389.39 6166.88 0.00 1147 14389.39 6166.88 0.00 1148 14389.39 6166.88 0.00 114 0.00 3000.00 0.00 1150 0.00 5000.00 0.00 1151 9931.44 4256.33 0.00 1154 0.00 1500.00 0.00 1155 0.00 1500.00 0.00 116 0.00 0.00 13095.00 1163 0.00 0.00 282236.00 1164....