TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal, i.e. Appeal No. ST/60625/2017 against the impugned Order-in- Appeal dated 28.04.2017 and Appeal Nos. ST/60642 to 60644/2017 against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 15.05.2017, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Service Tax, Gurugram, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has uphold the demand on the ground that the Appellant is liable to pay service tax on 'manpower supply service' rendered by its overseas affiliate to the Appellant. Since the issue involved in all four appeals is identical, therefore, all appeals are being taken together for discussion and decision. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the business of banking. The Appellant had entered into a Secondment Agreement wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Act, 1994, alleging fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. 4.1 He further submits that the Appellant was under a bona fide belief that no service tax is required to be discharged on the secondment of employees; and this position was also affirmed in the cases of Volkswagen India (Pvt) Ltd vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-I [2014 (34) STR 135 (Tri. Mumbai)] and Computer Sciences Corpn India Pvt Lt. vs. Commissioner of S.T., Noida [2014 (35) S.T.R. 94 (Tri. Del.)]. 4.2 He further submits that there is no wilful suppression on part of the Appellant considering an audit was conducted in 2009 and all facts were in the knowledge of the Department; hence, the Department cannot a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Construction Co. [2024 (5) TMI 372 - CESTAT Bangalore] • Bangalore International Airport Limited vs. Commissioner Office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2024 (7) TMI 1600 - CESTAT Bangalore] • AGS Customer Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Pune [2024 (6) TMI 1113 - CESTAT Mumbai] 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the department reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record. Since the Appellant has not pressed these appeals on merits, we will only deal with the issue of invocation of extended period of limitation to confirm the demand. 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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". It is, therefore, not correct to say that there can be a suppression or misstatement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitute a permissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section 11-A. Misstatement or suppression of fact must be wilful." 63. This decision was followed in Uniworth Textiles v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2013) 9 SCC 753 where it was observed that "the conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is equivalent to collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts" is "untenable". This view was also followed in Escorts v. Commissioner of Central Exci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....normal period or periods, covered by the four SCNs issued to it. The consequential demands therefore, shall be recovered from the assessee." 7.2 Further, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Delphi Automotive Systems Private Limited (supra), in identical circumstances, has set aside the demand outside the normal period of limitation. Relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced herein below: "6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the entire demand is barred by limitation because the demand pertains to year 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the SCN was issued on 23.10.2009. As the department has not brought any material on record to show that there was a frau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief that there stood and employer-employee relationship and no service tax was payable. It has been conceded by the learned counsel that such secondment arrangements are liable service tax. However, he has also submitted that until the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE vs. Northern Operating System [2022 61 GSTL 129 (SC)], most Tribunal decisions in this regard were in favour of the appellant. Therefore, no malafide intention/ suppression could be attributed to the appellant. .............. 8.1 In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Northern Operating Systems, it has to be held that the demand can be confirmed for the normal period only and the demand for the extended period cannot be sustained." 7.4....