M\/s. New Sun International Travel Agency Versus CST, Chennai (Presently known as The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate)
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 478 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 20-4-2018
ST\/MISC\/CT\/41672 & ST\/631\/2010 – FINAL ORDER No. 41206\/2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Shri . Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Menber (Technical)
\nShri G. Natarajan, Advocate For the Appellant
\nShri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Archana Wadhwa
\nThe miscellaneous application for change of cause title has been filed by the Revenue due to change in the jurisdiction of the appellant and change in address of the respondent. The present jurisdiction and address of the respondent is as follows:-
\n The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,
\n Chennai South Commissionerate,
\n MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
\nAccordingly, both the miscellaneous a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n incentive received, they were issued with the SCN demanding service tax liability of Rs. 4,54,459\/- along with interest on the above said income, for the period July 2003 to January 2008 in terms of proviso to Section 73 (1) and Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice also proposed to impose penalties under Sections 76 & 78 of the said Act. After due process of law the lower appellate authority confirmed the proposals initiated in the SCN vide the Order-in-Original dated31.12.2008 but dropped the proposal of penalty under Section 76 of the Act. Aggrieved with the said order of the original adjudicating authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which stands rejected by him vide the present impugned order. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n venue and as such the extended period was available and has been rightly invoked. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. New Sun International Travel Agency Versus CST, Chennai (Presently known as The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate)Service Tax2018 (6) TMI 478 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 20-4-2018ST\/MISC\/CT\/41672 & ST\/631\/2010 – FINAL ORDER No. 41206\/2018Service TaxHon'ble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Shri . Madhu Mohan Damodhar, … Continue reading “M\/s. New Sun International Travel Agency Versus CST, Chennai (Presently known as The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. 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.). H<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5.1 On going through the impugned order, we note that the lower authorities have observed that as the assessees have not paid the tax amount as demanded by the Revenue, the same would amount to suppression. However, we are not in agreement with the above observation of the lower authorities. A mere non-disclosure of the fact cannot make a guilty mind of the assessees so as to justifiably invoking the longer period. The Hon'ble SC in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments reported as 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC) 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.
\n5.2 In the present case, we note that there is no evidence of any ma<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n