2013 (4) TMI 375 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of duty - SCN was issued after 10 years Time barred - Held that - It is evident from the above law laid down by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in CCE, Vadodara vs. Eimco Elecon Limited 2010 (7) TMI 477 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT the issue, only the appellant cannot be held responsible for not having filing a return when the matter was within the knowledge of the department and the issue was under litigation. Respectfully following the ratio of the judgments, it is held that the demand is hit by limitation and appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by setting aside the order-in-Revision dated 31.1.2011.

Issues:
1. Time-barred demand due to retrospective amendments.
2. Invocation of extended period for payment.
3. Interpretation of law on service tax for Goods Transport Agency Services.
4. Applicability of judgments in similar cases.

Issue 1: Time-barred demand due to retrospective amendments
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Revision setting aside the original order due to a time-barred demand for the period of 16.11.1997 to 02.6.1998. The Commissioner invoked a five-year extended period from 13.5.2003 due to the appellant's failure to file a specified return, relying on a Larger Bench judgment. The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the issue was under litigation and retrospective amendments were made to the Finance Act. The advocate cited various judgments to support this argument.

Issue 2: Invocation of extended period for payment
The advocate contended that the extended period could not be invoked when the issue was under litigation and retrospective amendments were made to the Finance Act. On the other hand, the A.R. supported the Commissioner's decision based on the requirement to file a specific return within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal observed that the charging of service tax on Goods Transport Agency Services was under litigation, and retrospective amendments had to be considered. The High Court of Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a similar case, highlighting that the language of the statute did not clearly establish fault on the appellant for not filing a return.

Issue 3: Interpretation of law on service tax for Goods Transport Agency Services
The Tribunal analyzed the legal interpretation of service tax on Goods Transport Agency Services, noting that the issue was subject to litigation and retrospective amendments. The judgment of the High Court of Ahmedabad emphasized that the appellant could not be faulted for not filing a return when the matter was under departmental knowledge and in litigation. The Tribunal found that holding the appellant responsible for fraud or suppression to evade taxes was not justified based on the legal precedents and judgments cited.

Issue 4: Applicability of judgments in similar cases
The Tribunal, following the ratio of relied-upon judgments, held that the demand was time-barred and allowed the appeal by setting aside the order-in-Revision. The decision was based on the legal principles established in various judgments by different benches of the Tribunal, emphasizing the lack of justification for attributing fraud or suppression to the appellant. The Tribunal's ruling was in line with the legal interpretations and precedents cited during the proceedings.

---

← Previous Next →