2025 (2) TMI 951 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of duty on plant and machinery imported from abroad - invocation of exended period of limitation - revenue neutrality - HELD THAT - In the instant case the duty was paid of its own by the party in 2013 with interest. This conduct itself justifies that there was no intent to evade duty on the part of the appellant as has indicated by the learned advocate. Even on their discharge of the duty there were entitled to credit of the same and were allowed the department therefore they would have not benefitted in avoiding the taxes. He also pointed out that the taxes paid in 2013 were given credit of by the department of its own as per law indicating that action resulting in S.C.N. was not an enforcement action. Revenue neutrality existed in the present case and delay in payment has been compensated by paying interest. The extended period has been incorrectly invoked in the facts and circumstances of the matter. Therefore on limitation the matter does not stand. The party become entitled to relief on limitation both for extended period as also for penalty. This court is not committing on merit of the case. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved an appeal against an order regarding the imposition of duty on plant and machinery imported from abroad. The appellant argued on the issue of limitation, emphasizing their voluntary payment of tax in 2013 without departmental interference, indicating their good faith. The respondent contended that the extended period was correctly invoked due to lack of intimation or license. The tribunal noted the appellant's voluntary tax payment in 2013, indicating no intent to evade duty. It held that the extended period was incorrectly invoked, granting relief on limitation and penalty without commenting on the case's merits. The appeals were allowed.