9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 783 - AT - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - time period for issuance of SCN - whether for the period 1.7.2012 to 31.3.2013, the demand is sustainable by issuance of show cause notice dated 6.4.2018 or not? - HELD THAT - In terms of section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, the demand can be raised within five years by invoking the extended period of limitation. Admittedly, in this case in hand, the show cause notice dated 6.4.2018 was issued for the period 1.7.2012 to 31.3.2013 which is beyond the period of five years for the said demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) has invoked the Limitation Act. The said provisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. As the limitation prescribed for the matter is governed under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, therefore, the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 are applicable in the present case for limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Appellant's appeal against the demand for service tax for a specific period. 2. Contesting the demand based on the limitation period and applicability of the Limitation Act. 3. Interpretation of the relevant legal provisions governing the recovery of service tax. 4. Review order invoking the Limitation Act and its relevance to the case. 5. Commissioner (Appeals) decision on the sustainability of the demand and the subsequent appeal. Issue 1: Appellant's Appeal Against Service Tax Demand The appellant appealed against the demand for service tax amounting to ?6,67,103/- for the period from 1.7.2012 to 31.3.2013, initiated through a show cause notice issued on 6.4.2018. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of tangible goods service, cooperated during enquiries and deposited a sum as advised by officers. Issue 2: Contesting Demand Based on Limitation Period The appellant contested the demand, arguing that it exceeded the maximum limitation period of five years under Section 73 of the Act. Reference was made to a similar case where the relevant date for limitation reckoning was highlighted. The Assistant Commissioner initially dropped the demand for the specified period based on the limitation period. Issue 3: Interpretation of Legal Provisions The Commissioner reviewed the case, citing the appellant's admission of liability during enquiries and invoking the Limitation Act. The appellant argued that the Limitation Act does not apply to service tax matters, emphasizing that recovery of service tax is governed by the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that the liability of service tax is covered solely by the Act of 1994, not the Limitation Act. Issue 4: Review Order and Applicability of Limitation Act The appellant challenged the review order, arguing that the invocation of the Limitation Act based on admission of liability was irrelevant. The appellant maintained that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to service tax matters, as service tax is a levy under the Finance Act, 1994. Issue 5: Commissioner (Appeals) Decision and Appeal Outcome The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, prompting the appellant to file an appeal. The appellant contended that the show cause notice issued beyond the five-year limitation period was unsustainable. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing that the limitation prescribed for the matter is governed by the Finance Act, 1994. This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by the parties and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal.
|
