2018 (6) TMI 478 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Invocation of Extended period of limitation – proviso to Section 73 (1) and Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 – Air Travel Agent’ services – suppression of facts or not? – Held that:- A mere non-disclosure of the fact cannot make a guilty mind of the assessees so as to justifiably invoking the longer period – Hon’ble SC in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (2) TMI 116 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has observed that a mere inaction or failure on the part a manufacturer is not sufficient to invoke the larger limitation of five years and the same would be applicable only when something positive indicating that the manufacturer had the reasonable belief that he has to give the particular information.
–
In the present case, there is no evidence of any malafide on the part of the assesse. Also, the said issue was the subject matter of litigation with the Revenue pending at various levels and all the Air T
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e in address of the respondent. The present jurisdiction and address of the respondent is as follows:- The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. Accordingly, both the miscellaneous application is allowed and the jurisdiction and address of the respondent is changed from CST, Chennai to The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are Air Travel Agent and had obtained registration with the department under the category of Air Travel Agent services. The appellants were involved in booking of air tickets for their customers. In providing the service of air travel ticket booking, the appellant used central Computer Reservation Systems (CRS) software supplied by M/s. ABACUS/Ms. Amedeus. During audit of the appellant s premises, it was noticed that apart from their regular business the appellants had earned income
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
him vide the present impugned order. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly concedes that the issue now stands decided against the assessee by the Tribunal decision in the case of D. Pauls Consumer Benefit Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi – 2017 (52) STR 429 (Tri.-Del.). However, he assails the impugned order on the point of limitation by submitted that the demand stands raised, for the period July 2003 to January 2008, by way of issuance of SCN dated 28.08.2008. He submits that the issue involved was the subject matter of litigation with the Revenue, at all the levels as travel agents were taking a plea that the incentives/commissions received by them from such CRS software supplied by the companies are not taxable under the category of BAS. Lot of such appeals were pending before the Tribunal and the first decision came in the year 2017 in the above referred judgment of D. Pauls Consumer Benefit Ltd. (supra). He submits that as there is no evidence of any suppression with a ma
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
invoke the larger limitation of five years and the same would be applicable only when something positive indicating that the manufacturer had the reasonable belief that he has to give the particular information. 5.2 In the present case, we note that there is no evidence of any malafide on the part of the assesse. In fact, we agree with the Ld. Advocate that the said issue was the subject matter of litigation with the Revenue pending at various levels and all the Air Travel Agents were fighting the case with the department on the taxability. As such, it cannot be held that the present appellant was guilty of any suppression or mis-statement etc., so as to invoke the larger period of limitation. Accordingly, we hold that the major part of the demand, being beyond the normal period of one year is barred by limitation. 5.3 However, a part of the demand would fall within the limitation period for which the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =