2019 (3) TMI 616 - AT - Service Tax

Time Limitation - intent to evade or not - Management Maintenance or Repair Service - appellant providing work of reconditioning to Railways from June 2005 on agreements entered with Railways - non-payment of service tax - wrongful availment of abatement - applicability of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of FA - Held that - In the present case the department has not been able to establish any positive act on the part of the appellant to show that there was suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. In the decisions relied by the ld. counsel for the appellant it has been held that mere non-filing of returns or not taking registration would not amount to suppression of facts with intent to payment of service tax - Further in a slew of decisions various Courts have held that the department has to establish some positive act of suppression or mis-statement in order to invoke the extended period. Thus there are no ingredients in the present case for invocation of extended period - SCN is time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax under Maintenance or Repair Service category.
2. Eligibility for abatement under Notification No. 12/2003-ST.
3. Liability for service tax on transport of goods by road.
4. Invocation of extended period for demanding service tax.

Issue 1: Liability under Maintenance or Repair Service:
The appellants, manufacturers of Camshaft Assembly Segments, were providing reconditioning services to Railways from June 2005. The issue arose regarding their liability to pay service tax under the Maintenance or Repair Service category. The definition was amended to include reconditioning services. The authorities found that the appellants had not paid service tax on these services, leading to a demand for service tax, interest, and penalties.

Issue 2: Eligibility for Abatement:
During 2006-07, the appellants availed abatement under Notification No. 12/2003-ST without fulfilling the prescribed conditions. The authorities held that the appellants were not eligible for the abatement due to non-compliance. This resulted in a demand for service tax, interest, and penalties.

Issue 3: Liability for Transport of Goods by Road:
The appellants had not paid service tax on the services of transport of goods by road for freight charges paid during a specific period. The authorities found the appellants liable to pay service tax after abatement under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. The short payment of service tax was discovered during an audit, leading to a demand for service tax, interest, and penalties.

Issue 4: Invocation of Extended Period:
The show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period for demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The main argument presented was regarding the limitation period. The appellant contended that there was no deliberate evasion of tax and no malafide intent on their part. They argued that confusion regarding exemption existed, and they were under a bonafide belief regarding their liability to pay service tax. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support their argument against the invocation of the extended period.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal found that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant with intent to evade payment of service tax. The Tribunal concluded that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice did not establish any positive act of suppression. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of liability under different service categories, eligibility for abatement, liability for transport services, and the invocation of the extended period for demanding service tax, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment.

← Previous Next →