Case Law Details
Mount Everest Breweries Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Exicse (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Here, it was merely suppression of facts but intent to evade payment of service tax was absent.
Facts- The appellant is engaged in manufacturing, brewing and bottling of alcoholic beverages i.e. beer of their own brands as well as those owned by UBL. The appellant entered into an Agreement dated 01.03.2009 for manufacturing beer of brands own by UBL. A show cause notice dated 04.07.2014 was issued to the appellant for the period from September 2009 to June 2012 alleging that the transaction between the appellant and UBL would be taxable under the category of BAS as defined u/s. 65(19) and made taxable u/s. 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 . The Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax with interest and penalty. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- The Tribunal in Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd. vs. C. S. T., New Delhi, wherein the Tribunal after making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. CCE, Bombay, observed that there should be an intent to evade payment of service tax if the extended period of limitation has to be invoked.
Held that the Commissioner in the impugned order had concluded that merely because there was suppression of facts by the appellant, the suppression was with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Accordingly, the impugned order holding that the extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
