(a) Appellants under bona fide impression that their
activities would not come within the purview of Service tax under the category
of Mandap Keeper — Demand restricted to normal period [Secretary, Town Hall
Committee v. (2007) 8 STR 170 (Tri.-Bang.)
(b) Audit objections stating that impugned services were
liable to tax — Prima facie, thereafter, Department cannot allege
suppression of facts and invoke larger period of limitation [Vikram Ispat
v. Commissioner, (2007) 8 STR 559 (Tri.-Mumbai)]
(c) Appellant supplied labour as per contract for packing,
loading and unloading of cement. Department accepting coverage under manpower
recruitment agency and collecting service tax not to argue for coverage under
cargo handling service for prior period. Labourers rendering limited
assistance only in entire activities and their role ancillary. Labour supply
not to be equated with cargo handling involving interpretation of law and
larger period of limitation not invocable — Demand of Service Tax, interest
and penalty set aside [K. K. Appachan v. Commissioner, (2007) 7 STR 230
(Tri.-Bang.).
(d) Clarification not sought by appellant from Central
Government as regards exemption —Details not declared u/s.73 of the Act
extended period of limitation invocable. [Karnataka Govt. Insurance
Department v. Commissioner, (2008) 9 STR 355 (Tri.-Bang.)]
(e) Confusion on part of officers also as regards correct
scope of services being provided by appellant — With introduction of new
service, the activities undertaken by appellant were examined, notices issued
but not pursued — Short levy, if any, is not on account of mala fide
intention on part of appellant and no suppression on misstatement with a view
to evade duty can be attributed to him — Demand barred by limitation [Velji
P. & Sons (Agencies) P. Ltd. v. Commissioner, (2007) 8 STR 236 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]
(f) Appellant selling aluminium products through
consignment agents – Service Tax demanded holding consignment agents’ services
covered under clearing and forwarding agent — Impugned order noting presence
of conflicting views of Tribunal on taxability of consignment agent under
clearing and forwarding agent — Extended period not invocable when different
views prevalent on applicability of tax — Demand hit by time-bar — Appeal
allowed on limitation — [Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner,
(2007) 8 STR 27 (Tri.-Del.)]
(g) Adjustment of excess payment towards payment of tax
during later period — Return specifically mentioned the adjustment having been
filed by respondents — Full facts of such adjustment remained disclosed by
assessee [Demand time-barred [Commissioner v. Hexacom India Ltd.,
(2006) 1 STR 110 (Tri.-Del).]
(h) Suppression not alleged and extended time-period not
invoked in show-cause notice — Reasons for invocation of larger period of
limitation need to be clearly spelt out in SCN — Mere non–registration not
sufficient to uphold suppression of facts [Mahakoshal Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
v. Commissioner, (2006) 3 STR 334 (Tri.-Bang.)]
(i) SCN bereft of any reasons to invoke larger period —
Revenue to bring out proviso to larger period like suppression of facts,
willful mis-statement with intent to evade Service tax — Such facts not
brought out in show-cause notice — Demand for larger period not sustainable —
[Elite Detectives Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, (2006) 4 STR 583 (Tri.-Bang.)]
(j) Statements records from proprietor admitting liability
to tax on 13-12-2000 and SCN issued on 7-12-2001 — No invocation of larger
period in SCN — Department cannot enforce demand in SCN and due to inordinate
delay in issuing SCN — Assessee paid Service Tax for initial period and
thereafter due to loss in business, he failed to pay Service Tax — Demand for
larger period set aside — [Free Look Outdoor Advertising v. Commissioner,
(2006) 2 STR 102 (Tri.-Bang.)]
(k) Suppression of facts and omission to pay Service Tax —
Communication between appellants and foreign airlines supported by statements
of their officials in India clearly show that they had knowledge of taxability
of overriding commission — Appellants willfully not got themselves registered
with Department under category of business auxiliary services for their
Service Tax liability. Extended period of limitation invocable as suppression
of facts and omission to pay Service Tax proved [ETA Travel Agency Pvt.
Ltd. v. Commissioner, (2007) 7 STR 454 (Tri.-Bang.)
(l) Repeated reminders sent by Department to an entity to
get itself registered for Service Tax purposes — However, number of CBEC
Circulars existing, wherein that entity could legitimately entertain bona
fide belief that their activity was not liable to Service Tax — Extended
period found not invocable especially as Department had knowledge of
activities of the entity [Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Commissioner, (2006) 4
STR 349 (Tri.-Mumbai)]
(m) Returns filed on 22-10-1999, wherein adjustment in
relation to Service Tax on DOT interconnected bills specifically mentioned —
Reasons for adjustment being declared, suppression with intent to evade
Service Tax not to be alleged in respect of SCN dated 20-4-2004 — Extended
period of limitation not invocable, Demand time-barred [Commissioner v.
Spiced Communication (P) Ltd., (2006) 4 STR 74 (Tri.-Del.)]
(n) SCN issued on ground that appellants, who are basically
commission agents, are liable to pay Service Tax as clearing and forwarding
agents — Issue involved interpretation of legal provisions — Appellants under
bona fide belief that they are not covered by definition of clearing
and forwarding agents, hence not applied for Service Tax registration and not
followed subsequent procedures — No evidence to show that appellants
suppressed information with an intention to evade payment of duty – Demand
barred by limitation [NRC Ltd. v. Commissioner, (2007) 5 STR 308
(Tri.-Mumbai)]
o) ST-3 returns filed by appellants, wherein they had given entire particulars of amounts received by them from their clients – Reimburs-able amount received from clients also men-tioned in Annexure to Return – Chartered Accountant’s Certificate also produced – Lower authorities passed their orders without proper scrutiny of information contained is ST-3 returns – Longer period of limitation not invocable [Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (I) Pvt. Ltd. CST, (2007) 5 STR 118 (Tri.-Bang.)]
p) Appellants failed in their duty to inform the Department of their activity inviting Service Tax liability – Since intention to evade duty liability is established, benefit of time-bar not applicable [Bridgestone Financial Services v. CST, (2006) 4 STR 279 (Tri.-Bang).]
q) Appellants sourcing customers for personal loans and housing loans – Promotion of services rendered by client – Activity comes under Business Auxiliary Services – Statement and records given but SCN issued after normal period – Bona fide belief on non-liability as per statement – No finding on willful suppression with intent to evade payment of Service Tax – Demand not sustainable on account of time-bar [Bridgestone Financial Services Commissioner, (2007) 8 STR. 505 (Tri. Bang).]
r) Details and mode of computation of Service Tax being paid not disclosed in ST-3 form – Plea that there was bona fide belief that service was not taxable rejected and held that there was suppression of material facts – Invocation of extended period upheld [Bharti Cellular Ltd. v. Commissioner, (2006) 3 STR 423 (Tri.-Del.)]
