2014 (9) TMI 677 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - cleaning service - Held that - After enquiry made by the department, it came out that the appellants were neither registered with the service tax department nor they have discharged service tax payable on the cleaning service. The Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7 of his order has clearly brought out suppression because they have never informed the department about taxable service. - the fact of non-payment of service tax came to the knowledge of the department only once enquiries were started. - Decided against the assessee. As regards the argument that after the facts of non-payment of services came into the knowledge of the department, any show cause notice served beyond the stipulated period of one year is time barred, it is observed that acquiring knowledge by the Department does not take away the period of five years provided by the Law Makers in the Act itself when Department came to know of the willful suppression with intention to evade payment of duty/service tax. - Demand confirmed - Decided against the assessee.

Issues:
1. Service tax demand confirmation under section 73 (1) of the Act along with interest under section 75.
2. Imposition of penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Act.
3. Reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Benefit of exemption Notification No.6/2005-ST.
5. Applicability of extended period for demand.
6. Allegations of suppression and concealment of facts by the appellants.
7. Contestation of penalty imposition and request for waiver under section 80 of Finance Act, 1994.
8. Registration status and non-payment of service tax by the appellants.
9. Justification of extended period invocation by the department.
10. Interpretation of relevant date for limitation under the Act.
11. Compliance with statutory provisions for limitation period.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the confirmation of service tax demand and interest by the Commissioner (Appeals) under sections 73 (1) and 75 of the Act. The Commissioner also imposed penalties under sections 77 and 78, which were later reduced. The appellant contested the order and sought relief based on exemption Notification No.6/2005-ST.

2. The key issue revolved around the invocation of the extended period for demand by the department. The appellants argued that the demand was time-barred as there was no allegation of fraud, collusion, or willful suppression. They relied on legal precedents to support their position and requested a waiver of penalties under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. The department contended that the appellants suppressed material facts regarding their cleaning services to a specific company, leading to non-payment of service tax, lack of registration, and failure to file returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these findings, emphasizing the suppression of information by the appellants.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the appellants did not register for service tax or pay the due amount, which only came to light after departmental inquiries. The Commissioner's order highlighted the suppression of facts by the appellants, justifying the invocation of the extended period for demand.

5. The Tribunal referred to legal judgments to support the department's position on the extended period for demand. It cited cases where the relevant date for limitation did not depend on the department's knowledge, emphasizing the statutory provisions for the limitation period under the Act.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on the suppression of facts by the appellants, the justification for invoking the extended period, and the legal interpretations of the relevant date for limitation under the Act.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning for the final decision.

← Previous Next →