Page 61 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] ZIP ZAP EXIM (P) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 387
there was either fraud perpetrated by the respondent or there has been any col-
lusion or wilful misstatement of facts before the revenue. In the absence of any of
these ingredients present, we are of the considered view that invoking of extend-
ed period of limitation would not arise. That apart, we also find that appropriate
Government in exercise of vested power under Section 66D of the Finance Act
has issued negative list with effect from 1-7-2012, under which list respondent-
assessee would not be liable to pay service tax at all. In fact, this observation
which has been made by the Tribunal vide paragraph 2 of its order under chal-
lenge. It is in this background, we have noticed the submission made by Learned
Counsel appearing for appellant that there is no appeal filed by the assessee
against the order of confirmation of demand insofar as limited period of 30
months as indicated in Section 73(1) of Finance Act.
13. In the light of the aforestated discussion, we are of the considered
view that order of the Tribunal is just and correct and question of applying the
extended period of limitation as provided in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec-
tion 73 of the Act would not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case and
demand raised for the restricted normal period as prescribed under sub-section
(1) of Section 73 of the Act is proper.
14. In the light of above said finding recorded by us by affirming the
view expressed by the Tribunal, as noticed herein above, we are of the consid-
ered view that it would not be appropriate on the part of appellant-revenue to
invoke the extended period of limitation of five (5) years by raising a demand on
respondent-assessee for the said period. Question of recording a finding with
regard to culpability on the part of the assessee by the Assessing Officer would
not arise for reasons indicated above. As such, both the questions of law are an-
swered against the appellant-revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee.
15. For the reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Order passed by CESTAT in Final Order No. 21823/2014, dated
24-9-2014 vide Annexure-A is hereby affirmed.
(iii) No order as to costs.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 387 (Guj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala and Bhargav D. Karia, JJ.
ZIP ZAP EXIM (P) LTD.

Versus
UNION OF INDIA
R/Special Civil Application No. 15388 of 2018, decided on 29-1-2020
Re-export of goods - Demand for bank guarantee of 25 per cent of
IGST - Court vide order dated 9th August, 2018 directed respondent to permit
petitioner to re-export goods on furnishing 25% of Customs duty leviable on
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  181