2015 (1) TMI 1046 - HC - Service Tax

Imposition of penalty - Suppression of facts - Held that - Court has seen the entire final order passed 2009 (3) TMI 43 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , wherein it has been specifically held that the entire claim of the appellant is barred by limitation. Of course it is true that the appellant has put up its claim from October, 1998 to August, 2000. Since period of limitation is six months, rejection of the entire claim concluded by the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous and therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Appellate Tribunal for considering the last portion which has been mentioned in Annexure-II, started from April, 2000 to August, 2000. Since the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Appellate Tribunal, the substantial questions of law settled in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal need not be decided. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of law regarding suppression of facts in evasion of service tax.
2. Application of Section 80 of the Act in waiving penalties.
3. Determination of the period of limitation for service tax demands.

Analysis:
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the Final Order by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, where the appellant was directed to pay service tax. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise passed the order-in-original, partially accepting the demand. The Commissioner of Appeal further reviewed the case, accepting a portion of the demand. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the claim entirely due to limitation issues. The High Court considered whether the Tribunal could set aside the demand based on lower authority comments on penalties for suppression of facts to evade service tax.

2. The Court deliberated on the application of Section 80 of the Act, which allows penalty waiver if a reasonable cause for failure is proven by the assessee. The concern was whether using a reasonable cause to waive penalties under Section 78 could lead to setting aside the entire demand, which might not align with the legislative intent. The Tribunal's decision to hold the demand beyond the normal limitation period was also questioned concerning the show cause notice issued.

3. The Court observed that the entire claim was deemed barred by limitation, which was erroneous as the limitation period was six months. The Appellate Tribunal's rejection of the entire claim was found to be incorrect. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for reconsideration, specifically focusing on the period from April 2000 to August 2000. The Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to assess the period of limitation for this specific timeframe and make a decision on the merits accordingly.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and instructing a reevaluation by the Appellate Tribunal on the limitation period concerning the specified timeframe. The substantial legal questions raised in the appeal were deemed unnecessary for decision due to the remittance of the matter for further consideration.