INDIA COLOUR LAB. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides and perused the records.

(2.) THE appeal is directed against the demand of service tax of about Rs. 24,000/ - and imposition of equal penalty. The demand was raised by invoking the extended period provided under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. The demand is being challenged only on the ground of limitation.

(3.) THE demand relates to service tax payable on the value of service rendered to registered dealers. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the facts of the present case do not permit of invocation of extended period under Section 73, since there was no mis -statement. It is being contended that in the present case the appellant was filing returns on a regular basis and returns specifically showed the amounts collected from registered dealer under Col.5 of the return. The ld. Counsel contends that a perusal of the statements would make it clear that no service tax was being paid on the services rendered to registered dealer. It is his submission that since no wilful mis -statement is involved, the demand and penalty are liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation.