2018 (3) TMI 1132 - AT - Service Tax

Woks contract services - period from 2009-10 to 2010-11 for which SCN dated 19/10/2012 was issued - extended period of limitation - Held that - the earlier SCN dated 07/04/2010 was issued invoking the suppression clause under Section 73 of the Act covering the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 - the crux of the issue raised in the present proceedings is no different from that in the earlier proceedings. All the issues remain the same. Even the respective contracts, received by the appellant were from the same organizations for similar kind of construction work - the Department is not justified in invoking the suppression clause once again in the second show cause notice. The demand raised in the SCN dated 19/10/2012, on the same grounds as the earlier SCN dated 07/04/2010 has to be restricted to the normal time limit. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision on merit for the period falling within the normal time limit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming Service Tax demands and penalties under Sections 73, 77, and 78 for the period 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Analysis:
The appellant, registered under CICS and WCS, challenged the Order-in-Original confirming Service Tax demands and penalties. The dispute involved construction services for residential houses, educational trust, denial of abatement, and WCS Composition Scheme benefit. The appellant argued against the suppression clause invocation for raising demands under Section 73, citing previous show cause notices and regular compliance with statutory requirements. The Ld. DR supported the impugned order, justifying suppression allegations due to lack of full transaction details in self-assessment. The Tribunal noted the similarity of issues with earlier proceedings and the absence of new evidence for suppression. Referring to the Nizam Sugar Factory case, the Tribunal held that suppression could not be sustained when facts were already known to authorities. Consequently, the demand was restricted to the normal time limit, considering the appellant's registration, regular filings, and audit history. The impugned order was set aside, remanding the matter for a fresh decision within the normal time limit, allowing the appellant to argue on merit based on dropped demands in prior and subsequent periods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.