2018 (3) TMI 769 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - receipt of subsidy from the Reserve Bank of India - suppression of facts or not? - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) s finding for dropping of demand for the extended period is only on the basis of a letter dated 16.10.2008. However, this very letter was not produced before the original authority. Therefore, the fact regarding submission of this letter and the genuineness thereof was not verified - ven the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also has not got this letter verified from the department seeking a report. The matter should be reconsidered by the original authority after verifying the genuineness of the letter dated 16.10.2008 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue appeal against dropping of demand for extended period as time-barred based on a letter dated 16.10.2008.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) where the demand for the extended period was dropped as time-barred, relying solely on a letter dated 16.10.2008. The Commissioner (Appeals) justified the decision by stating that the department was aware of the subsidy receipt activity from the Reserve Bank of India based on this letter, indicating no suppression of facts. However, the Revenue contested the authenticity of the letter in the appeal.

During the proceedings, the learned Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue highlighted that the letter dated 16.10.2008 was not presented before the adjudicating authority, leading to the inability to verify its contents at any stage. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the demand as time-barred solely based on this unverified letter was deemed incorrect and unlawful, warranting reversal.

In the absence of representation from the respondent, the Tribunal carefully examined the arguments put forth by the Revenue and reviewed the case records. It was observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision to drop the demand for the extended period solely on the letter dated 16.10.2008, which was not submitted before the original authority for verification. As a result, the authenticity and submission of this crucial letter remained unverified, with the Commissioner (Appeals) failing to seek a departmental report on its genuineness. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be reconsidered by the original authority after proper verification of the letter dated 16.10.2008. The appeal was allowed, remanding the case back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision specifically concerning the demand dropped as time-barred.