9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1311 - HC - CustomsTime limitation - no suppression of facts - no intent to evade - Held that - In the present case, the Appellate Authority had come to the conclusion that the service tax rate was increased from 5% to 8% w.e.f. 14th May, 2003 and accordingly, assessee was liable to pay duty at such higher rate, which the assessee had failed to do. The question of nonpayment of duty, is undisputed whether it was deliberate with a view to avoid the duty is question of fact duly addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the order of Adjudicating Authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues: Challenge to Tribunal's judgment on grounds of non-suppression by the Appellant and limitation.
The Appellant challenged the judgment of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing mainly on the grounds of non-suppression and limitation. The Counsel contended that the Department was aware of the factual position, and hence, the extended period of limitation invoked by the Department was not justified in this case. The Tribunal, however, focused on the question of limitation and rejected the contention that the extended period was not available to the Department, citing a decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. The Court in that case held that the Department's knowledge would not determine the relevant date for the period of limitation for issuing a show cause notice for duty recovery. The Appellate Authority found that the Appellant had failed to pay duty at the increased service tax rate of 8% from 5% effective from May 14, 2003. The Tribunal agreed with the view on limitation, emphasizing that the nonpayment of duty was undisputed, and whether it was deliberate to avoid duty was a question of fact addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant's effort was primarily to argue on the question of limitation, particularly concerning the term 'relevant date' in the context of the Assessee's declaration in the return filed. The Court dismissed the Appeal, stating that they were in agreement with the Tribunal's view on the limitation issue. Consequently, as the Appeal was dismissed, the Notice of Motion was also disposed of as infructuous.
|
