9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against service tax order invoking larger period and penalty. Analysis: The appeal arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, affirming service tax by invoking a larger period and imposing a penalty. The Commissioner proceeded against the assessee by issuing a show cause notice, alleging suppression of value of taxable service with an intent to evade payment. The assessee contended that the matter had already been adjudicated by the ACCE, Service Tax, who dropped the proceedings. The Commissioner, instead of reviewing the order, issued a fresh show cause notice, which was deemed unsustainable by the appellant. The appellant argued that the demands were time-barred as the correct value had been declared, and the show cause notice lacked proper grounds. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee to be sustainable and legally sound. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's order was not sustainable as the matter had already been adjudicated, and demands had been dropped by the AC. The Commissioner's failure to review the matter as per Section 84 of the Finance Act rendered the proceedings invoking a larger period unsustainable. Referring to a judgment by the Apex Court, it was established that demands cannot be confirmed for a larger period when earlier show cause notices and proceedings had been initiated against the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the Commissioner's order invoking a larger period for service tax and penalty was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of reviewing matters as per the provisions of the Finance Act and cited legal precedent to support its decision in setting aside the impugned order.
|
