Service Tax : Waiver of penalties under section 80 on ground that issue involved is one of interpretation of law, proves that ingredients required for invoking extended period were not present; hence, extended period was not invocable.
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 264 (New Delhi - CESTAT)
CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Sankhla Udyog
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur*
JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT
AND R.K. SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER
FINAL ORDER NO. 52861/2014
APPLICATION NO. ST/STAY/56543/2013
APPEAL NO. ST/56085/2013-CU-(DB)
JULY 10, 2014
Section 73, read with section 80, of the Finance Act, 1994 - Recovery - Of duty or tax not levied/paid or short-levied/paid or erroneously refunded - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Adjudication authority waived penalties relying upon section 80 on ground that there was interpretation of law involved; however, invocation of extended period was upheld - Assessee challenged same - HELD : Waiver of penalties under section 80 clearly shows that ingredients required for invoking extended period were not present in this case - Further, in entire adjudication order, there was no word as to how extended period is invocable - Hence, extended period was not invocable [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]
Section 73, of the Finance Act, 1994, read with sections 11A and 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 28, of the Customs Act, 1962 - Recovery - Of duty or tax not levied/paid or short-levied/paid or erroneously refunded - Adjudication of demand - Department confirmed demand on ground that there was difference between balance sheet figures and ST-3 returns - Assessee argued that balance sheet was prepared on accrual basis, while ST-3 returns were filed on receipt basis, leading to impugned difference - Adjudicating authority held that it is not possible to check each and every entry running into thousands; hence, demand was confirmed - HELD Once assessee contended that difference was because of accrual and receipt system of accounting, a clear finding was required to be given by adjudicating authority instead of brushing it aside on ground that it was not possible to verify their claim - Hence, matter was remanded back for adjudication afresh [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]
Circulars and Notifications : Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 264 (New Delhi - CESTAT)
CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Sankhla Udyog
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur*
JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT
AND R.K. SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER
FINAL ORDER NO. 52861/2014
APPLICATION NO. ST/STAY/56543/2013
APPEAL NO. ST/56085/2013-CU-(DB)
JULY 10, 2014
Section 73, read with section 80, of the Finance Act, 1994 - Recovery - Of duty or tax not levied/paid or short-levied/paid or erroneously refunded - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Adjudication authority waived penalties relying upon section 80 on ground that there was interpretation of law involved; however, invocation of extended period was upheld - Assessee challenged same - HELD : Waiver of penalties under section 80 clearly shows that ingredients required for invoking extended period were not present in this case - Further, in entire adjudication order, there was no word as to how extended period is invocable - Hence, extended period was not invocable [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]
Section 73, of the Finance Act, 1994, read with sections 11A and 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 28, of the Customs Act, 1962 - Recovery - Of duty or tax not levied/paid or short-levied/paid or erroneously refunded - Adjudication of demand - Department confirmed demand on ground that there was difference between balance sheet figures and ST-3 returns - Assessee argued that balance sheet was prepared on accrual basis, while ST-3 returns were filed on receipt basis, leading to impugned difference - Adjudicating authority held that it is not possible to check each and every entry running into thousands; hence, demand was confirmed - HELD Once assessee contended that difference was because of accrual and receipt system of accounting, a clear finding was required to be given by adjudicating authority instead of brushing it aside on ground that it was not possible to verify their claim - Hence, matter was remanded back for adjudication afresh [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]
Circulars and Notifications : Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005
No comments:
Post a Comment