Rajasthan Housing Board Vs Commissioner Central Excise (CESTA New Delhi)
Coming to the allegations of suppression of facts, we are of the opinion that there has to be a positive act of suppression apparent on part of the appellant along with an apparent intention to evade the payment of tax and there has to be a wilful misstatement as was held by Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Centre for Development of Advance Computering vs. CCE Mumbai – 2016 (41) STR 2008. The Adjudicating Authority below is observed to have failed to show any such positive act. Admittedly, the appellants were submitting their returns regularly. No question of suppression otherwise is possible. Department has failed to reflect any wilful misstatement. Appellant, admittedly, is an instrumentality of State Government. There cannot be an intent to evade the payment of tax. We rely upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Centre for Entrepreneurship Development vs. CCE, Bhopal – 2014 (34) STR 373 wherein it was held that when an Institute run by a State Government and associated in implementation of various welfare schemes of the Government, the allegations of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement can be nothing but absurd.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The appellant, in the present appeal, the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur (hear-in-after called as ―RHB) is engaged in construction of residential houses from loan sanctioned by HUDCO and other financial institutes and allotting these houses on hire purchase sale and outride sale basis to the consumers against collection of the amounts as follows:-
1. Ancillary service charges to meet out additional overheads levied by HUDCO and other financial institutes.
2. Hire purchase deposits from its consumers Purchasing houses/flats on hire purchase.
3. Interest for flats/houses allotted on hire purchase.
4. Administrative charges on registration of transfer of hire purchase lease.
2. Department alleged that activity of collection of above said charges is covered under definition of Banking and other Financial Services as mentioned under Section 65 (12) of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. In view of these observations / allegations, Department has served the appellants with following three Show Cause Notices for the respective period and the quantum of demand:-
