Works Contract: Mistake committed in giving declaration in ST-3 is rectifiable defect and cannot create demand: Matter remanded.

Service Tax: Valuation: Banking and Financial services: Extended period of Limitation: When the respondents have not disclosed the entire taxable value in the statutory ST - 3 Return, and they have omitted to include part of the value coupled with non-payment of requisite amount of tax in respect of such amounts, it definitely amounts to suppression and willful mis-statement and hence the extended period of limitation is applicable. Hence, the order of the lower appellate authority is modified and the duty demand along with interest relating to the extended period of limitation is confirmed. (para 3)

Service Tax: Valuation: Banking and Financial services: Penalty: Section 80: Considering the fact that the respondents are a public sector-bank and also other attendant circumstances of the case, the penalties imposed on the respondents are wavied invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. (para 4)

Service Tax: Refund: Notification No. 41/2007-ST dt. 06.10.2007: Remand: Primarily, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been passed on the ground that specific discrepancies noted were not reconciled by the appellants. Set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to him for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing and after taking into account the evidence that may be produced by the appellants. (para 6)

Service Tax: Refund: Effective date of merger: In the present case, the Ministry’s order clearly specifies the effective date, which is 01.04.2004. Therefore, the original authority’s order rejecting the refund claim holding that the effective date for amalgamation is from 02.05.2007, cannot be approved. Appellate Commissioner’s order appears legal and proper. The registration certificate has been surrendered on 04.05.2007 is also not relevant as on the said date both IOCL and IBP were present only as IOCL. IOCL has taken over the assets and liabilities of erstwhile IBP w.e.f. 01.04.2004 in view of the amalgamation. Undisputedly the surrender formalities were also undertaken by IOCL. Therefore, IOCL stepping into the shoes of erstwhile IBP, have claimed the refund.(Para 7).There is no valid ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (A).(Para 8). The appeal by the department is rejected. The stay petition is also disposed of.(Para 9).

Service Tax: Demand: Waiver of pre-deposit: Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994: In view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules, the revised return cannot be ignored simply on the ground that the same has been filed after a period provided under Rule 7B of the Rules. The matter requires re-consideration by the adjudicating authority in view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules. The impugned order is set aside, after waiving pre-deposit of the amount of service tax, interest and penalty and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh.(Para 3).

Service Tax: Goods Transport Agency Service: Rebate under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 : Export of Services : Remand : All documents were enclosed and review of documents would have shown what was the refund being claimed. Substantive right cannot be denied on the ground that covering letter of the refund claim is wrong. In view of the above discussion the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed. However, since the claim has not been considered on merit, the claim is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to verify the eligibility of claim and correctness of the documents submitted and amount claimed. (para 5,6) 

Service Tax: Recovery of refund erroneously granted of credit of input service tax: The period involved is prior to 18.04.2006 when Section 66A came into effect and, therefore, the appellants were not liable to pay tax for the period prior thereto. Therefore, the refund claims ought not to be rejected for the reason that during the period in dispute, there was no liability cast upon the appellants to pay service tax.(Para 3).

Appeals allowed.

Service Tax: Demand u/s 73: The period of the dispute is 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. In an identical case in Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II v. L. H. Sugar Factories Ltd. and Ors. - (2005 (13) SCC 245), this Court agreed with similar conclusions of the Tribunal. In the said case, the conclusions of the Tribunal were as follows: "The above would show that even the amended Section 73 takes in only the case of assesses who are liable to file return under Section 70. Admittedly, the liability to file return is cast on the appellants only under Section 71A. The class of persons who come under Section 71A is not brought under the net of Section 73. The above being the position show cause notices issued to the appellants invoking section 73 are not maintainable." The apex court has followed L.H. Sugar Factories decision of the apex court. Since the issue stands settled against the Revenue by the apex court's decision cited supra, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals)