2026-VIL-1626-CESTAT-DEL-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1626-CESTAT-DEL-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Advertising Agency Service and other taxable services, Suppression of taxable value, Invocation of extended period of limitation, Threshold exemption, Cum-tax benefit, CENVAT Credit - Appellant engaged in providing Advertising Agency Services through registered firm and also provided taxable services through unregistered firm during F/Y 2016-17, ST-3 returns showed gross receipt of Rs.15,39,884/- with claimed threshold exemption of Rs.10,00,000/- and paid service tax on remaining amount, Department through verification observed actual gross receipt was Rs.25,98,374/- from both firms with the receipts from unregistered firm not disclosed in ST-3 returns, Show Cause Notice was issued demanding service tax with interest and penalties, Appellant contended that SCN is barred by limitation under Section 73(1) of Finance Act 1994 and that extended period cannot be invoked without fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement - Whether the extended period of limitation was properly invoked by the Department and whether the appellant is entitled to threshold exemption, cum-tax benefit and CENVAT credit claim - HELD - The extended period of 5 years was correctly invoked as the appellant admitted that the correct taxable value was not disclosed in the ST-3 returns and the amount from the second unregistered firm was not shown in the returns due to oversight and clerical mistake - The failure to disclose the correct taxable value in ST-3 returns clearly establishes the appellant's intent to evade service tax - Once a person is registered with the Service Tax Department, the question of threshold limit exemption does not arise and the appellant wrongly availed the threshold exemption of Rs.10,00,000/- which the appellant themselves admitted was claimed due to mistake or oversight - The appellant claimed cum-tax benefit on receipt of Rs.8,34,550/- from the unregistered firm but has not submitted proper documentary evidence in support of the claim, the sample invoices submitted lacked required details and no documentary evidence was adduced before the Tribunal - The appellant sought CENVAT credit of Rs.59,997/- at a much later stage which was not availed within the prescribed time limit in ST-3 returns as required under Finance Act 1994 read with CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and no fresh evidence has been submitted to establish eligibility for the credit - The impugned order is upheld - Appeal is dismissed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?