2008 (3) TMI 276 - AT - Service Tax

In L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd. it was held that SCN issued u/s 73 was not maintainable in case of entities who were not liable to file service tax returns u/s 70 but u/s 71A and that section 73 did not cover cases of liability u/s 71A in view of above case, commissioner allowed the assessee appeal impugned revenue s appeal against decision of commissioner both on merits as well as time bar, is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show-cause notice under section 70 of the Act.
2. Time bar issue regarding subsequent show-cause notice invoking a larger period.
3. Liability to payment on service users/receivers during a specific period.
4. Application of validating provisions of Finance Act, 2000.
5. Interpretation of judgments and citations relied upon by both parties.

Issue 1:
The appeal arose from an order setting aside the show-cause notice issued under section 70 of the Act. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that section 73 did not cover cases of liability under section 71A. Thus, the show-cause notice invoking section 70 was deemed not maintainable, leading to the appeal being allowed.

Issue 2:
The revenue raised grounds on merits and time bar regarding a subsequent show-cause notice invoking a larger period for the same issue. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in CCE v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd., it was held that the subsequent notice was hit by time bar. The Commissioner upheld this view, emphasizing the importance of invoking a larger period in the initial notice.

Issue 3:
The liability to payment on service users/receivers during a specific period was debated. The revenue argued that a technical error in issuing the notice under a different section should not absolve the liability. However, the Tribunal, relying on previous judgments, including the L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. case, set aside the demands on time bar grounds.

Issue 4:
Regarding the application of validating provisions of Finance Act, 2000, the Tribunal considered the submissions and upheld the view that subsequent notices invoking a larger period were hit by time bar. The judgments cited by the counsel supported this position, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

Issue 5:
Both parties relied on various judgments and citations to support their arguments. The Tribunal considered these references, particularly emphasizing the relevance of previous decisions in similar cases. The judgments in the cases of Ghataprabha Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit and Durairaj Mills Ltd. were deemed applicable to the present case, leading to the rejection of the appeal based on the time bar issue and the application of relevant legal principles.