"1 CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. III SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.52527 OF 2018 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-524-17-18 dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax, Central Excise & Customs, Raipur (C.G.)]. M/S. SINGH TRANSPORT COMPANY, …APPELLANT Khasra No.19/1, N.H.6, Nandanvan Road, Village Chandandih. Raipur, C.G.-492 009. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, …RESPONDENT Central Excise Building, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492 001. APPEARANCE: Ms. Sakshi Gopal, Chartered Accountant for the appellant Shri Aejaz Ahmad, Authorised Representative for the respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final ORDER NO.51273 /2025 DATE OF HEARING:11.08.2025 DATE OF DECISION:10.09.2025 BINU TAMTA: M/s. Singh Transport Company1 has challenged the Order-in-Appeal2 confirming the demand of service tax under the category of „Business Support Services‟ prior to the period 01.07.2012 along with interest and penalty under the provisions of the Finance Act,1994. 2. The appellant is a partnership firm providing various services viz. Transport of goods by Road, Clearing & Forwarding Agency, Business 1 The Appellant 2 No.BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-524-17-18 dated 22.03.2018 2 Support Service, Renting of Immovable Property Services etc. and availing CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on various input services. 3. The appellant was registered with service tax for providing „transportation of goods by road” and „business support service‟, but they failed to get themselves registered in respect of „renting of immovable property service‟ and „clearing and forwarding agency service‟. 4. During audit of records of the appellant, it was found that the appellant during the period 01.04.2010 to 31.12.2014 has rendered the services of „renting of immovable property service‟, „clearing and forwarding agency service‟ and „business support service‟ but has not discharged their service tax liability. Show cause notice dated 15.04.2016 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation, demanding Rs.46,79,046/- along with interest and penalty from the appellant. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed on all counts. The appeal filed by the appellant has been partly allowed to the extent that the demand of Rs.7,90,700/- for the period post 1.07.2012 on account of services by way of transportation of goods by road were exempted under Clause (p) of Section 66D of the Act, however, the demand of Rs20,29,742/- for the same services during the pre-negative period was confirmed under the category of „Business Support Services‟. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The demand and the challenge in the present appeal is limited in the category of „Business Support Services‟ during the period 1.04.2010 to 30.06.2012. From the impugned order, we find that the appellant had not contested the levy of service tax under the category of „Renting of Immovable Property Service‟ 3 and „Clearing & Forwarding Agency Service‟ in respect of which they had already paid the entire amount confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of the period post 1.07.2012, the impugned order has already dropped the demand. We are, therefore, concerned with the service tax confirmed for the period April 2010 to June 2012 under the category of „Business Support Service‟ as defined under Section 65(104c) of the Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised a preliminary objection as to the invocation of the extended period of limitation as there is no case of wilful suppression. The learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dehradun, CESTAT New Delhi3. 7. Before adverting to the argument raised by the learned Counsel, we note that show cause notice was issued on 15.04.2016 for the period April 2010 to December 2014. The period from July 1,2012 to December 2014 has been set aside by the impugned order. The previous period from April 2010 to March 2011 falls beyond the extended period of five years from the date of show cause notice and is, therefore, outside the tax net. The remaining period from April 2011 to June 2012, falls within the extended period, however, in the impugned order, we do not find any discussion justifying the applicability of the extended period of limitation. The allegation of suppressing the taxable value with respect to the services under Renting of Immovable Property Service, C&F Agent Service and Business Support Services is that they have not been disclosed by the appellant and the same was detected by the Department during the course of investigation. Since 3 Final Order No.55590/2024 dated 19.04.2024 4 the appellant is not contesting the levy of tax in respect of the two categories, Renting of Immovable Property Service and Clearing & Forwarding Agency Service, the same is no longer subject matter of present appeal. With regard to the services of transportation of vehicles by road/business support services, the Commissioner has observed:- 12. The appellant have also contested imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The fact of non payment of service tax under Renting of Immovable Property Service, Clearing & Forwarding Agency Service Business Support Service have not been disclosed by the appellant to the department and the same was detected by the department during the course of investigation. The appellant have clearly suppressed the taxable value in the ST-3 Returns submitted by them. Hence it is clearly a case of suppression of fact which warrants invocation of extended period and imposition of mandatory penalty. The order passed by the adjudicating authority imposing penalty under Section 78 ibid is correct and does not warrant any interference. However, since the amount of service tax liability to the tune of Rs7,90,700/- has been set aside the quantum of penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority shall also get reduced by this much amount. Accordingly, the amount of penalty is reduced to Rs.38,88,346/- (viz. Rs.46,79.046/-minus Rs7,90,700/-] from Rs46,79,046/- imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.” 8. We find that the learned Counsel is correct in relying on the decision of the Tribunal in M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., where the invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty under Section 78 was set aside on the principle that if the self-assessment of service tax by the appellant was not correct in the opinion of the Department as it had not disclosed certain amounts which were taxable according to the Department, the remedy against incorrect self-assessment is the Best Judgement Assessment under Section 72 by the officer and in that regard it was observed as under:- “28. The Central Excise officer has, evidently, not done his job of scrutinising the returns, calling for records and ascertaining if the service tax was correctly paid and later, the audit discovered the incorrect self-assessment by the appellant. This does not prove that the appellant had an intention to evade but only proves that the Central Excise officer under the Commissioner had not done scrutinized the returns as he was required to. Nothing in the entire impugned order establishes intent or adduces any evidence to establish intent. We, therefore, hold in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue on the 5 questions of extended period of limitation and the penalty under Section78.” 9. Applying the same analogy, we find that neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have recorded any findings on the applicability of the extended period of limitation and hence the issue of invocation of extended period of limitation is decided against the Revenue and consequently, no penalty is also leviable on the appellant. The entire demand which is the subject matter of appeal is, therefore, set aside. We do not find any reason to sustain the impugned order and the same is hereby quashed. The appeal is, accordingly allowed. [Order pronounced on 10th September, 2025] (BINU TAMTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (P. V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ckp. "