9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 178 - AT - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - Composite service or not - contract of C&F cum packaging agent - demand of service tax on reimbursement of expenses - Held that - Though there is a single agreement but it embodies separate contract for each kind of services that being provided and separate compensation for those services. In view of above, there is no vivisection attempted by the Revenue of composite service as there is no single composite service. The appellant has separately billed for each of these separate services. In view of this the Circular CBEC No. 87/97/service Tax dated 14.07.1997 and No. 186/5/20015 dated 05.10.2015 both relating to single composite service are not relevant - In the instance case the amounts recovered under independent separate clause of the agreement of the rate schedule constitute independent and separate services thus on merits the demand is sustained. Extended period of Limitation - Held that - SCN was issued to the appellant on 22.11.2006 on the basis s of inquire initiated by summons. On the basis of same inquire initiated the appellant response in the said Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.2006 and impugned notice dated 05.04.2007 is one on the same. The argument under consideration in both notices was also in the same, under these circumstance invocation of the extend period of limitation cannot be sustain. The penalty under Section 78 is set aside, the penalty under Section 76 is revised to the amount of duty leviable for the period within limitation. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalty. 2. Whether demand beyond the extended period of limitation can be sustained. 3. Classification of expenses under different heads for taxation purposes. 4. Vivisection of a single service into components for tax liability. 5. Interpretation of circulars and legal precedents for tax classification. 6. Applicability of penalty under Sections 76 and 78. Issue 1: Demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalty The appeal was filed against the demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalty by M/s Deep Chemicals. The appellant argued that the demand was based on a Show Cause Notice issued beyond the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal examined the arguments presented by both parties regarding the demand and related penalties. Issue 2: Limitation of Demand The appellant contended that the demand raised beyond the extended period of limitation could not be sustained. They highlighted that multiple Show Cause Notices were issued on similar facts, invoking questions on the validity of the extended period for raising the demand. The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of the notices and the nature of the inquiries to determine the applicability of the extended limitation period. Issue 3: Classification of Expenses The dispute involved the classification of expenses under different heads for taxation purposes. The appellant detailed various expenses incurred in their contract with M/s Tata Chemicals, arguing that certain reimbursements were not liable for Service Tax as they were not directly related to the C&F services provided. The Tribunal examined the nature of these expenses and their connection to taxable services. Issue 4: Vivisection of a Single Service The appellant argued against the vivisection of a single service into components for tax liability purposes. They relied on legal precedents and circulars to support their contention that a single service should not be artificially split for taxation. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and evaluated whether the service provided by the appellant could be considered as a composite service or separate components. Issue 5: Interpretation of Circulars and Legal Precedents The legal interpretations of circulars and precedents played a crucial role in determining the tax liability in this case. The appellant and the Revenue relied on various circulars and court decisions to support their positions regarding the classification of services and tax implications. The Tribunal analyzed these references to reach a conclusion on the tax treatment of the expenses in question. Issue 6: Applicability of Penalties The Tribunal also addressed the issue of penalties under Sections 76 and 78. After reviewing the facts and arguments presented, the Tribunal decided on the applicability of penalties in relation to the tax liabilities and limitations discussed in the case. The decision on penalties was made in conjunction with the overall judgment on the demand of Service Tax and related issues. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the relevant issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal arguments, interpretations, and conclusions reached by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.
|
