Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (11) TMI 1726 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
1. Barred by limitation of time in show cause proceedings.
2. Classification of services under Management, Maintenance and Repair service or works contract service.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the show cause proceedings were time-barred as the notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Section 78, stating no intention to evade tax. The Tribunal observed that recovery can be made within 18 months unless there is fraud, collusion, misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. As there was no evidence of intent to evade tax, the demand beyond the normal period was not sustainable. The appeal was partly allowed on the ground of limitation, setting aside the impugned order to that extent.

2. The dispute arose regarding the classification of services provided by the appellant. The department classified them under Management, Maintenance and Repair service, while the appellant argued they should be considered works contract service. The Tribunal noted the confusion regarding tax liability discharge and lack of evidence of intent to evade tax. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order's demands. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal on the limitation ground, directing the original authority to quantify the service tax, interest, and penalty under Section 76 to be paid by the appellant.

3. The imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was a significant issue. The appellant argued there was no element of suppression, wilful misstatement, or fraud to defraud government revenue. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Section 78, emphasizing no intention to evade tax. The Tribunal considered the absence of evidence of intent to evade tax and ruled in favor of the appellant, partly allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order to the extent of limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal based on the limitation ground, setting aside the penalty under Section 78 and directing the quantification of service tax, interest, and penalty under Section 76 to be paid by the appellant.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates