2016 (6) TMI 77 - AT - Service Tax

Period of limitation - Demand of Service tax - maintenance and repair service - Held that - the period of dispute was 01/7/2003 to 31/3/2004 and the matter went up to the Tribunal which decided the case in their favour. Hence demand, if any, for the subsequent period should be within normal period of limitation. Show cause notice dated 14/5/2007 covered a period from 16/6/2005 to 17/4/2006. It is clear that the demand for the period prior to 01/4/2006 is clearly hit by time bar in terms of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 during the relevant period. As such, no demand can be sustained for the period prior to 01/4/2006. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on inputs - Held that - it is clear that the legal entitlement of the appellant cannot be rejected on technicalities. As the appellants have discharged the service tax on the taxable service, all the demands being within normal period, the eligibility of appellant for input credit subject to verification by the Original Authority is to be upheld. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/the Original Authority is directed to examine the documentary evidences that may be submitted by the appellant in support of their claim for Cenvat credit on inputs used for providing the taxable service during the material time and allow the same subject to satisfaction of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Imposition of penalties - Section 76 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - bonafide belief on appellant s part regarding tax liability - Held that - the appellants paid the demanded service tax in September 2009 well before the adjudication of the case in January 2010. Therefore, this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 80 for waiver of penalties imposable under Section 76. The penalty imposed under Section 78 is not sustainable in the facts of the present proceedings, as the ingredients required for imposition of penalty under the said Section are not invokable in these proceedings. - Appeals disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Time bar on demand dated 14/5/2007
2. Eligibility for Cenvat credit on inputs
3. Penalties under Section 76 and Section 78

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with four appeals against a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, initiated to demand service tax for maintenance and repair services provided by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld part of the demand covered by the second show cause notice, while denying the benefit of Cenvat credit on inputs and confirming penalties under Section 76 and Section 78. The appeals were filed challenging these decisions.

2. The appellant raised three main issues for relief: (a) time bar on the demand dated 14/5/2007, (b) eligibility for Cenvat credit on inputs, and (c) the imposition of penalties under Section 76 and Section 78. The appellant argued that the demand dated 14/5/2007 was time-barred, and they should be eligible for Cenvat credit based on documentary evidence. They also contended that penalties should not be imposed due to a genuine belief regarding tax liability.

3. The Tribunal found that the demand for the period prior to 01/4/2006 was time-barred under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. On the issue of Cenvat credit, the Tribunal held that the appellant's entitlement should not be rejected on technicalities, directing the Original Authority to verify and allow the credit based on documentary evidence. Regarding penalties, the Tribunal invoked Section 80 to waive penalties under Section 76 due to the appellant's payment of service tax before adjudication and found that penalties under Section 78 were not sustainable based on the facts of the case.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals in favor of the appellant on all three grounds. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory limitations, eligibility for tax credits based on proper documentation, and the consideration of genuine beliefs in tax matters when imposing penalties under the relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994.