2016 (11) TMI 784 - AT - Service Tax

Time Bar - Maintenance and Repair Services - issuance of SCN - period of limitation - Held that - appellant had discharged the Service Tax liability for the earlier period and for the subsequent period accepting that he is liable to pay the Service Tax on the amount received from their clients - The contention of the appellant that quarterly returns are to be filed is erroneous since the quarterly returns were replaced by Half-yearly returns with effect from 16.10.1998 vide notification 57/1998 S.T. dated 07.10.1998. Accordingly there was time to issue the instant show-cause notice upto 25.04.2009; whereas the instant show-cause notice was issued on 20.04.2009. Therefore it is clearly evident the show-cause notice was validly issued and cannot be termed as time-barred in respect of any portion covered by it - appeal rejected - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Service Tax liability for the period 01.10.2003 to 09.09.2004 under the category of "Maintenance and Repair Services"; Contention of the appellant regarding limitation of the Service Tax liability.

In this case, the appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur regarding the Service Tax liability for the period 01.10.2003 to 09.09.2004 under the category of "Maintenance and Repair Services." Despite the absence of any representation from the appellant, the appeal was taken up for disposal. The Departmental Representative was heard, and the records were perused.

The main issue revolved around the Service Tax liability during the specified period. It was noted that the appellant had rendered services to their clients but had not paid the Service Tax despite registration and reminders from the department. The appellant contended that the Service Tax liability was time-barred due to the show-cause notice being dated 20.04.2009.

The first appellate authority correctly determined that the show-cause notice was issued within the limitation period of five years. The authority explained that the relevant date for issuing the notice is determined based on the rules and regulations under the Act. In this case, the show-cause notice was issued within the permissible timeframe, as the appellant had not filed the necessary returns on time. The appellate authority found no inconsistency in the findings and noted that the appellant had acknowledged the Service Tax liability for other periods.

Considering the factual position and the legal aspects, it was concluded that there were no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court.