2008 (4) TMI 149 - AT - Service Tax

Security agency services - Appellant deposited the tax voluntarily without any protest - show cause notice can be issue even after one year to appropriate the impugned amount of service tax along with interest deposited by the Appellant in the Government Account - therefore, the submission of appellant that the demand of tax is barred by limitation is not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 14.11.2007.
2. Validity of the corrigendum to the show cause notice dated 11.5.2006.
3. Whether the demand of tax is barred by limitation.

Rectification of Mistake in Final Order:
The Tribunal, in Final Order No.1654/07-SM (BR) dated 14.11.2007, reduced the penalty amount imposed on the Appellant from Rs.1,57,896/- to Rs.50,000/- and otherwise rejected the appeal. Subsequently, the Appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order. The Tribunal, through Misc. Order No.106/08-SM (BR) dated 28.3.2008, allowed the Miscellaneous Application on the point of limitation. The facts of the case revealed that the Appellant, engaged in security agency services, had voluntarily deposited the service tax amount of Rs. 1,67,896/- after a Central Excise audit.

Validity of Corrigendum to Show Cause Notice:
The Appellant's Advocate argued that the corrigendum to the show cause notice dated 11.5.2006, alleging suppression of facts to evade tax payment, was time-barred and, thus, the demand of duty was not sustainable. The Advocate relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of Carponix Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative contended that since the Appellant had voluntarily paid the duty without protest, the demand was not time-barred. The Tribunal observed that the corrigendum to the show cause notice, issued beyond the original notice's scope, was impermissible under the law.

Demand of Tax Barred by Limitation:
After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Appellant had indeed deposited the tax voluntarily without protest. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice proposed to appropriate the deposited service tax and interest in the Government Account. Therefore, the corrigendum's attempt to recover the amount by invoking an extended period of limitation was deemed ineffective. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the demand of tax was not barred by limitation, as claimed by the Appellant's Advocate.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the Appellant's voluntary tax payment without protest rendered the limitation argument unsustainable. The Tribunal's findings on limitation were to be read in conjunction with the Final Order No. 1654 of 2007-SM (BR) dated 14.11.2007.