MVM Business Services Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Allahabad)
CESTAT Allahabad held that demand invoking extended period of limitation cannot be sustained since there was bona fide that services fall under negative list. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
Facts- The appellant was registered with the Service Tax Department and are engaged in providing/ receiving taxable Services as defined u/s. 65B(44) of the Act r.w.s. 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. Inquiries were made asking to the appellant to furnish details of payment of service tax along with copies of ST-3 returns & 26AS and reason of differential value shown in service tax return & Income tax return. Appellant did not respond to the above communication. Hence it was not possible to determine exact nature and classification of the services provided by the appellant.
Accordingly, show cause notice was issued and the demand was confirmed vide order-in-original. Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been modified as per the impugned order.
Conclusion- Held that extended period of limitation could not have been invoked for making the demand when the person entertained a bonafide belief about non taxable nature or exempted nature of the services provided.
