9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against order setting aside service tax confirmation on the point of limitation.
Issue 1: Validity of show cause notice u/s 73(1)(a) pre and post amendment: The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order confirming service tax against the respondents on the point of limitation, citing the amendment dated 10.9.2004 which aligned the provisions with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The show cause notice was issued after the amendment, invoking pre-amended provisions for the period prior to the amendment. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice should have been issued under the amended provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2004. Since the proviso to Section 73 was not invoked and essential ingredients were not mentioned in the notice, the demand was held to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with the new provisions post-amendment. Issue 2: Allegation of suppression of facts in the show cause notice: The Revenue contended that the respondents suppressed facts regarding service tax liability, but the Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence of suppression or misstatement by the respondents. The Commissioner relied on a Supreme Court case which held that limitation for an extended period cannot be invoked unless the show cause notice specifically notifies the assessee of the commissions or omissions. The Tribunal decision in the case of Mahakoshal Beverages Pvt. Limited was also cited to support the view that the notice must specify the nature of the alleged non-compliance. The Commissioner's decision was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected. This judgment highlights the importance of invoking the correct provisions post-amendment and the necessity of providing specific details in a show cause notice to avoid limitation issues in tax matters.
|
