Case Details: Kiran Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur (2025) 27 Centax 387 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Mrs Hemambika R. Priya, Member (T)
- Shri Bipin Garg & Ms Kainaat, Advs., for the Appellant.
- Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, engaged in providing air conditioning services, was issued a show-cause notice for non-payment of service tax under ‘Operation, Maintenance, and Repair Service’ for the period 2005-2010. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalties. The assessee contended before the CESTAT that it was engaged only in the operation of air conditioning systems, with maintenance and repair being merely incidental. It further argued that it had a bona fide belief that service tax was not applicable and challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation on the ground of absence of intent to evade tax.
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble CESTAT held that the work order explicitly required the assessee to perform both annual maintenance and operation of air conditioning systems. The Tribunal noted that the non-disclosure of service tax liability in ST-3 returns demonstrated a deliberate intent to evade tax, rendering the plea of bona fide belief unsustainable. Accordingly, the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, was justified, and the appeal was dismissed in favor of the Department.
