2016 (7) TMI 236 - HC - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - service tax credit on the input services attributable to trading sales - Though the petitioner had challenged this order by filing the writ petition, the petitioner has paid the entire amount without prejudice to their rights. - The petitioner pleads that the petitioner may be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order before the Commissioner (Appeals). Admittedly, the period of limitation stipulated for filing the appeal has already over. Held that - considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and if such appeal is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall entertain the appeal petition without reference to limitation.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order demanding service tax credit on input services attributable to trading sales, recovery of sum, imposition of penalty, appeal filing after limitation period, interference by the Court in limitation computation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order demanding service tax credit on input services related to trading sales, leading to a recovery of a specific sum and imposition of a penalty. Despite paying the entire amount, the petitioner sought permission to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was technically time-barred. The Court noted two prevailing issues justifying its intervention. Firstly, the petitioner had paid the duty and penalty, desiring a chance to contest the matter on merits. Secondly, the petitioner's key personnel involved in tax matters had left the organization without informing management about the impugned order.

Considering the unique circumstances, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within 30 days from the order's receipt. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to entertain the appeal without reference to the limitation period. The Court clarified that this decision should not set a precedent and imposed no costs on either party.