2016 (9) TMI 1105 - AT - Service Tax

Invokation of extended period of limitation - Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Demand - Held that - the charges of suppression, misstatement etc. have not been specifically made therein for confirmation of service tax demand beyond the normal period of limitation prescribed in the statute. Further, in the adjudication order, the proviso to Section 73 has also not been invoked, justifying confirmation of the demand. Therefore, the proceeding initiated by the Department is barred by limitation of time. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Invocation of the proviso to Section 73 for confirmation of demand beyond one year from the relevant date.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the invocation of the proviso to Section 73 for confirming a service tax demand beyond the prescribed time limit. The appellant contended that the charges of suppression, misstatement, and fraud necessary for invoking the extended period of limitation were not explicitly mentioned in the show cause notice. The Department argued in favor of the impugned order. The Tribunal examined the show cause notice and found that it did not specifically allege suppression or misstatement to justify the demand beyond the normal limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the proceeding initiated by the Department was time-barred. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed solely on the ground of limitation.

This judgment highlights the importance of clearly specifying allegations of suppression or misstatement in a show cause notice when seeking confirmation of demand beyond the statutory limitation period. Failure to do so can result in the proceedings being deemed time-barred. The Tribunal's decision underscores the significance of adhering to procedural requirements and statutory provisions while initiating tax-related proceedings.