The appellant claims that it was the sole and exclusive service provider for the US Embassy and operated from a desk set up within the premises of the US Embassy. During the period of dispute from to, the appellant was rendering air travel agent services to the Embassy of the United States of America 3. The appellant is engaged in rendering air travel agent and other tour related services. SOTC Travels Service Private Limited 1 has filed this appeal to assail the order dated passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2, by which the demand of service tax has been confirmed with interest and penalty.Ģ. Accordingly, the order was set-aside by which the demand of service tax had been confirmed with interest and penalty.

The invocation of the extended period of limitation, therefore, could not be sustained. Moreover, even when an assessee had suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation could be invoked only when “suppression‟ or “collusion” was wilful with an intent to evade payment of duty.

Even for the subsequent period, assessee continued to provide such services to the US Embassy and the exemption had been allowed. It was held that assessee was able to correlate the invoices with the undertakings and satisfied the substantial conditions set out in the Exemption Notifications.

Principal Commissioner passed the impugned order denying the exemption to assessee and confirming the demand of service tax with penalty. During the audit, it was observed that assessee-company was incorrectly availing exemption on services rendered to the US Embassy. In 2014, an investigation was initiated and audit of the records of assessee was conducted in terms of rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. These Notifications exempted services rendered to diplomatic mission or consular posts in India from payment of service tax. On such services, assessee was availing exemption from payment of service tax in terms of Notification dated till and, thereafter, under Notification dated. It claimed that it was the sole and exclusive service provider for the US Embassy and operated from a desk set up within the premises of the US Embassy. Held: Assessee was rendering air travel agent services to the Embassy of the United States of America. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked in absence of “suppression‟ or “collusion” with an intent to evade payment of duty. Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)Ĭonclusion: Assessee was able to correlate the invoices with the undertakings and satisfied the substantial conditions set out in the Exemption Notifications.

Show cause letter sample