2024 (5) TMI 68 - AT - Service Tax

Time limitation - SCN issued by invoking the extended period of limitation - interpretational issue - Penalty - HELD THAT - For an earlier period in the appellant s own case, this Tribunal has already decided the issue on merits against them and the present proceedings are by way of a periodical Show Cause Notice issued to them for the period from July 2004 to March 2007 issued on 30th March, 2009, which is highly time-barred. The whole of the demand impugned herein is barred by limitation - As the demand is not sustainable against the appellant, no penalty is imposable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against demand of Service Tax under "cargo handling service" for the period from July 2004 to March 2007 based on a Show Cause Notice dated 30th March, 2009, invoking the extended period of limitation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Finality of Previous Tribunal Order
The appellant appealed against the demand of Service Tax under the category of "cargo handling service" for the period from July 2004 to March 2007. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a previous Tribunal order had decided against them on the same issue for an earlier period, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Odisha High Court and the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court was withdrawn by the appellant. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal for the earlier period had attained finality on merits against the appellant.

Issue 2: Limitation of Demand
The appellant argued that since the Show Cause Notice for the current matter was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation and the issue was interpretational, the entire demand was barred by limitation. After hearing the appellant's counsel and examining the records, it was noted that the present proceedings were based on a periodical Show Cause Notice issued for the period from July 2004 to March 2007, which was highly time-barred. Therefore, it was held that the entire demand impugned was indeed barred by limitation.

Issue 3: Penalty Imposition
Given that the demand was found to be not sustainable against the appellant due to being time-barred, it was further held that no penalty was imposable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA highlighted the finality of a previous Tribunal order against the appellant, the limitation aspect of the demand, and the consequent decision on penalty imposition based on the specific circumstances of the case.