Page 11 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] INDEX - 11th June, 2020 ix
Demand (Contd.)
whereas it was not admissible to them - Mistake of appellant for short
declaration of tax liability is rather held to be a bona fide mistake on part
of appellant - Declaration denied to be a false declaration - Since
documents are on record to appreciate the threshold limit as well as the
entitlement of abatement as impressed upon by appellant, matter
remanded back for de novo adjudication of entire demand, interest and
penalty — Raj Engineering v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Udaipur (Tri. - Del.) ..... 252
— Business Support Service - Scope of - Appellant providing driver, cleaner
and maintenance of Buses owned by a manufacturing company for use in
ferrying its employees - Since recipient is a commercial organization,
services provided are in relation to business and commerce only - Non-
mention in inclusive clause of definition of aforesaid service immaterial
as scope of said service is not confined to inclusive clause only - Demand
sustainable - Section 65(104c) of Finance Act, 1994 — Pearl Travels v.
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman (Tri. - Ahmd.) ................ 242
— Limitation - Business Support Service - There being no ambiguity in
definition of aforesaid service, non-payment of Service Tax without
informing to department amounts to suppression of fact - Extended
period of demand invocable - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Pearl
Travels v. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman (Tri. - Ahmd.) ........... 242
— Limitation - Extended period - Appellant not under bona fide belief that
only commission is chargeable to service and not the total gross value of
service provided by them, there being absolutely no ambiguity in
provisions of security service as to value on which Service Tax will be
chargeable - Extended period of limitation rightly invoked - Section 73 of
Finance Act, 1994 — Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Surat v. Jalaram Security Services
(Tri. - Ahmd.) ...................................... 189
— Limitation - Extended period - Appellants although availed the total
Cenvat credit of ` 23 lakhs (approx.) whereas vide the impugned order,
Commissioner demanding more than ` 80 lakhs which is more than the
total credit availed - Further, for the period April, 2008 to March, 2012,
entire demand is barred by limitation, show cause notice being issued on
21-10-2013 for the period April, 2008 to March, 2012 which is beyond the
limitation period of one year - Also, Extended period not invocable, law
on the point when not clear and definition of exempted service changed
from time to time and interpretational issue involved - Substantial
demand for the period from April, 2008 to March, 2012 entirely time-
barred - Rules 6 and 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 — Gateway Hotels v.
Commissioner of Customs, C. Ex. & S.T., Cochin (Tri. - Bang.) ................ 210
— Limitation - Extended period of limitation invocable when services
specifically covered under a particular taxable category of services
defined under Finance Act, 1994 but assessee failed to pay Service Tax in
respect thereof - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Subhash Pipes Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi (Tri. - Chan.) ...................... 240
— Limitation - Hiring and renting of vehicles - In view of precedent decision
of High Court in 2014 (36) S.T.R. 513 (Guj.), extended period of limitation
not invocable - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Pearl Travels v. Commissioner
of Central Excise & S.T., Daman (Tri. - Ahmd.) ....................... 242
— Limitation - Invocation of extended period - Suppression, Absence of -
Misclassification of product - Fact of availment of benefit of exemption
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  11