2014 (6) TMI 833 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Rent a cab service - outdoor catering services - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - Admittedly, the show cause notice issued on 26.4.2006 pertaining to the period 8.7.04 to 3.2.2005 is barred by normal period of limitation. Further, the original adjudicating authority having granted the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act to the appellant, has held that there was no suppression on the part of the assessee. If there is no suppression, I fail to understand as to how the longer period of limitation would get invoked. - Demand barred by limitation period - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand for providing services without registration.
2. Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Barred period of limitation for the show cause notice.
4. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
5. Benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
6. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The judgment confirms the demand of Rs. 1,02,937 against the appellant for providing rent-a-cab and outdoor catering services without registration during a specific period. The issue of service provision without registration led to the demand confirmation.

2. The original adjudicating authorities imposed penalties under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, no penalty was imposed under section 78 as it was considered a new tax, and the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was extended. The Revenue did not appeal against this decision.

3. The show cause notice issued on 26.4.2006 for the mentioned period was found to be barred by the normal period of limitation. The appellant was granted the benefit of section 80, indicating no suppression on their part, raising questions about the invocation of the longer period of limitation.

4. The judgment refers to various decisions, including J P Singhal and Co. vs. CCE, emphasizing that once section 80 is invoked and no penalty is imposed under section 78, the longer period of limitation should not be applicable. The conditions for invoking the extended period of limitation and imposing penalties under section 78 were found to be identical.

5. Given the above analysis, the judgment sets aside the impugned order and allows the appeal on the point of limitation, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The decision highlights the importance of considering the benefit of section 80 and its impact on the period of limitation in such cases.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key issues addressed, the reasoning behind the decision, and the legal principles applied in resolving the matter.