75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

April 2011

(2011) 21 STR 234 (Tri – Bang) – United Telecom Ltd. vs. CCEx., Hyderabad

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Extended period of limitation found not applicable when Department had knowledge of activity of assessee – The Tribunal further observed that SCN did not mention statutory provision for demanding tax.

Facts:
The lower authorities passed order demanding service tax of Rs.1.06 Cr. under business auxiliary services for the period from 2003 to 2007 and levied penalty of Rs.1.10 CR under sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. However, the sub-clause under which service tax was required to be paid was not mentioned. Appellant had intimated as to their activities to Department in December, 2005. Moreover, on the identical issue for earlier years in case of the appellant itself, the lower authorities had accepted the order of the appellate authority.

Held:
Extended period of limitation was not invoked when the appellant had intimated its activities to the Department. The demand could not be confirmed when the show cause notice did not specify the specific statutory provision. Demand of service tax, interest and penalty was set aside.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

(2011) 21 STR 289 (Tri. Chennai) – Textech International (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai

(2011) 21 STR 445 (Tri.-Bang) – Country Club (India) Ltd. vs. Comm. Of Cus., C. Ex.& S.T., Hyderabad