2017 (12) TMI 21 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - non-payment of service tax - Held that - the appellant had no intention to defraud the govt. revenue and also there is no element of suppression, mis-statement etc. in payment of service tax by it. Therefore, the demand should be confined to the normal period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - the matter should go back to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the service tax demand payable by the appellant within the normal period of limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against service tax demand for technical inspection and certification, cargo handling service, business auxiliary service; Time limitation for demand confirmation; Intent to defraud government revenue; Adjudication order observations on suppression of facts.

Analysis:

1. Service Tax Demand and Time Limitation: The appeal was filed against an order upholding a service tax demand for various taxable services provided by the appellant from 1.7.2003 to 31.12.2007. The appellant argued that the demand confirmation was barred by the limitation period, as there was no mens rea to defraud the government revenue. The adjudicating authority acknowledged that there was no suppression of facts or intention to evade payment of tax by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed that the demand should be confined to the normal period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Intent and Compliance: The Tribunal noted that the appellant had no intention to defraud the government revenue and did not engage in any suppression or misstatement in the payment of service tax. The observations from the adjudicating authority emphasized that being a government department, there was no personal gain involved in the non-payment of tax or noncompliance with legal requirements. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the demand should be quantified within the normal limitation period, indicating that the appellant's case was not contested on merits but solely on the grounds of limitation.

3. Decision and Remand: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for a fresh adjudication to quantify the demand within the normal period of limitation. It was emphasized that a personal hearing should be granted before deciding the issue afresh. The appeal was allowed for remand, focusing on the quantification of the service tax demand within the prescribed time limit. Additionally, miscellaneous applications were disposed of as part of the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment primarily revolved around the time limitation for confirming the service tax demand, the lack of intent to defraud the government revenue by the appellant, and the necessity for a fresh adjudication considering the absence of suppression or misstatement in tax payment.