Page 191 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 661
Demand (Contd.)
be provided in taxable territory by one person to another shall be levied
to tax, as emphasized in Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994, introduced
with Finance Act, 2012 - Hence, for post negative list era, services need
not to be classified specifically - Whenever service rendered and
consideration in lieu thereof, in whatever form, received, same to be
leviable to tax - Admittedly, assessee provided space inside Club’s
premises to book-makers, arranged for live telecast of Matches conducted
in other Race Clubs as also provided auditing facility and catering
services to book-makers - Also, assessee charged money from book-
makers on two counts; fixed amount for stall fee and profit based amount
as commission - Hence, both requirements of Section 66B ibid, stands
fulfilled - No infirmity in confirmation of demand for post negative
period as well - Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 — Hyderabad Race Club v.
Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex., Hyderabad (Tri. - Hyd.) ................... 289
— Computation thereof - Cum-tax benefit - Admissibility - Appellant being
a PSU, mens rea cannot be assumed for suppression/mis-declaration by
them - Accordingly denial of cum-tax benefit on ground of suppression
cannot sustain - Appellant entitled for aforesaid benefit in computation
of demand - Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for this purpose
also - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Mackintosh Burn Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Service Tax, Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) ............................ 409
— equal to 5%/10% value of job work service not sustainable for using
common manpower services - See under JOB WORK .............. 196
— Limitation - Extended Period - Invocation of - Adjustment of R & D Cess
before discharging payment of Service Tax in violation of substantive
condition of Exemption Notification - Impugned case, not case of any
bona fide interpretation inasmuch as wordings of Notifications very
clear, requiring recipient to pay R & D Cess before payment of Service
Tax so as to avail exemption - No justifiable reasons provided by assessee
for not paying R & D Cess in time and for availing exemption without
such payment of R & D Cess - Invocation of longer period of limitation,
correct - Impugned order upheld - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Inox
Wind Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida (Tri. - All.) ................. 123
— Limitation - Extended period, invocation of - Removal of capital goods
stock to sister concern upon reversal of actual credit taken thereon -
HELD : Demand pertains to February and March, 2002 and show cause
notice issued on 8-3-2006 - Assessee submitting ER-1 regularly and
regular audit of assessee also being undertaken - No case of deliberate
suppression of facts etc. made out by department - Also, frequent
changes of law and different circulars issued by C.B.E. & C. during
relevant time therefore, different interpretation by assessee, possible -
Extended period cannot be invoked - Demand clearly barred by
limitation - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 corresponding to
Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Lupin Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T.
(LTU), Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ............................. 576
— Limitation - Invocation of larger period - Acquiring of land on behalf of
JV company, known to Department before issue of show cause notice -
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  191