2026-VIL-1491-CESTAT-CHE-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax – 100% EOU – Vague SCN, Demand under Business Auxiliary Service - Appellant engaged in providing Transcription Service to Doctors in USA - Show Cause Notice invoking extended period of limitation - Appellant contended demand is wholly barred by limitation - On merits Appellant argued activity was telecommunication service which is taxable only when provided by person licensed under Indian Telegraph Act and foreign entity Ecostentel is not licensed. - Whether demand is wholly barred by limitation and whether demand for service tax on Business Auxiliary Service is sustainable on merits - HELD - Burden to prove allegation of fraud collusion or suppression lies very heavily upon Revenue. SCN alleges Ecostentel rendered Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(105)(zzb) but does not put appellant to notice of statutory definition of Business Auxiliary Service as provided in Section 65(19) or under which limb of definition Appellant falls - SCN does not rely on any inculpatory statement or agreement bringing out relationship or nature of service as falling under Business Auxiliary Service. SCN has not let in any evidence of any positive act of fraud suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade payment of duty. Revenue has failed to adduce any evidence establishing that Appellant engaged in wilful or deliberate suppression of material facts. Nothing on record suggests Appellant acted with any intention to mislead authorities or evade payment of service tax. SCN is bereft of reasons justifying invocation of extended period of limitation - Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page