2007 (9) TMI 619 - AT - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they have suppressed the income shown in the Income Tax returns and hence the larger period was invoked - Held that - Revenue has proceeded against the appellants on the basis of the Income Tax returns. The fact of the details has been disclosed in the Income Tax returns which indicates that there was no suppression of facts - Prima facie the appellants have strong case to succeed on time bar - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is required to pre-deposit Service Tax amount and penalty.
2. Whether the appellant suppressed income shown in Income Tax returns.
3. Whether the Income Tax returns constitute disclosure of facts.
4. Whether the judgments cited by the appellant have relevance in the case.
5. Whether the Commissioner provided findings on the Apex Court judgments.
6. Whether the appellant has a strong case to succeed on time bar.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant was required to pre-deposit Service Tax amount and penalty. The appellant, a Security Agency service provider, contended that certain taxable income shown in Income Tax returns was not taxable as it had been disclosed to the Income Tax Department. The Revenue alleged suppression of income, invoking a larger period for assessment.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that the Income Tax returns were public documents and no facts were suppressed. The appellant relied on various Apex Court judgments to support their contention that the declaration in the Income Tax returns constituted disclosure of facts.

Issue 3: The Tribunal noted that the details disclosed in the Income Tax returns indicated no suppression of facts. The Tribunal considered the judgments cited by the appellant, suggesting that the Income Tax returns could be considered as a form of disclosure.

Issue 4: The Tribunal found that the judgments of the Apex Court cited by the appellant had relevance in the case. The Commissioner, however, did not provide any findings on these judgments in the impugned order.

Issue 5: The Commissioner did not give any finding on the Apex Court judgments as confirmed by the learned DR. This lack of consideration by the Commissioner was noted during the proceedings.

Issue 6: After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the Revenue proceeded against the appellant based on details in the Income Tax returns, indicating no suppression of facts. The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of amounts, suggesting that the appellant had a strong case to succeed on time bar.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay application by granting waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery of amounts until the appeal's disposal, indicating that the appellant had a strong case to succeed on time bar based on the disclosure in the Income Tax returns and the relevant Apex Court judgments cited.