2014 (12) TMI 915 - AT - Service Tax

Evasion of duty - Goods transport agent service - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Malafide Intention - Held that - It is the credit of Service Tax paid which is available to the assessee and not credit of Service Tax payable. Admittedly the appellants have paid the Service Tax on the GTA services availed during December, 2004 though they were not liable to pay the same. Having paid the Service Tax, they are entitled to the credit of the same. It is to be noted that no objection was raised by the Revenue at the time of payment of Service Tax by the appellant. The circumstances for imposing penalty and for invocation of longer period are identical. The original adjudicating authority having held that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to evade duty, I really fail to understand as to how the longer period of limitation, which is primarily based on mala fide intention, would be available to the Revenue. The demand having been raised after the normal period of limitation, is barred by limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
Confirmation of Service Tax credit availed by the appellant for services of goods transport agent during January to March 2005.
Validity of the appellant's entitlement to credit of Service Tax paid on services availed in December 2004.
Imposition of penalty and invocation of longer period of limitation by the original adjudicating authority.
Confirmation of the original adjudicating authority's order by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Applicability of the credit of Service Tax paid by the appellant and the issue of limitation.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the confirmation of Service Tax credit availed by the appellant for services of a goods transport agent during January to March 2005. The lower authorities had confirmed the Service Tax and disallowed the credit availed by the appellant. The appellant had paid the Service Tax for services availed in December 2004, which the Revenue claimed was not taxable from the appellant's end. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant, challenging the admissibility of the credit. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand but refrained from imposing a penalty due to the absence of any intention to evade duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

The judgment analyzed the appellant's entitlement to credit of Service Tax paid on services availed in December 2004. The appellant contended that since they had paid the Service Tax, they were entitled to avail the credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand but did not impose a penalty, considering the lack of mala fide intention to evade duty. The judgment highlighted that the credit of Service Tax paid was available to the appellant, emphasizing that they had paid the tax in good faith, and no objection was raised by the Revenue at the time of payment.

The issue of penalty and the invocation of a longer period of limitation by the original adjudicating authority were also addressed in the judgment. Despite confirming the demand, the authority refrained from imposing a penalty due to the absence of mala fide intention. The judgment questioned the application of a longer period of limitation, as there was no evidence of deliberate evasion. It concluded that the demand raised after the normal limitation period was barred by limitation, supporting the appellant's plea on limitation.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The decision emphasized the appellant's right to credit for the Service Tax paid in good faith, highlighting the absence of mala fide intention to evade duty and the inapplicability of a longer limitation period without evidence of intentional wrongdoing.

← Previous Next →