2017 (12) TMI 1505 - HC - Service Tax

Time limitation - validity of SCN - subsequent SCN - Held that - A finding of fact has been recorded that non-filing of documents as required by summons and non appearance before the authorities is a deliberate violation of law and, therefore, the charge of suppression of facts is clearly borne out from the conduct of the Appellants - It was held that the notices issued on 8th September 2004 were not in continuation of notices for the previous period. The finding of fact is that, the notices issued on 8th September 2004 were not based on identical facts or identical evidences - demand is not barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over service tax recovery for renting vehicles on an annual contract basis.
- Allegations of non-response to show cause notices and non-appearance for personal hearing.
- Appeals dismissed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal.
- Contention on time-bar for recovery of service tax and penalties.
- Reference to previous show cause notices and summonses for non-filing of returns and recovery of service tax.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to three Appeals challenging a common judgment by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the recovery of service tax for renting vehicles to a company on an annual contract basis. The Appellants had registered under service tax, and show cause notices were issued proposing recovery for specific periods, along with interest and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellants alleged non-response to notices and non-appearance for hearing, leading to confirmation of demands and imposition of penalties by the Revenue.

2. The Appellants contended that the demands were time-barred, citing previous show cause notices issued to them. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that the demands were not barred by limitation based on factual findings. The Tribunal noted that the Appellants failed to provide required information despite summonses, leading to the issuance of the impugned notices. The Tribunal concluded that the demands were not based on identical facts or evidence, thus rejecting the time-bar argument.

3. The Appellants relied on a previous decision by the Appellate Tribunal, which was rendered after the impugned notices were issued. The Tribunal found that the Appellants did not press any other defense to show a bona fide belief about the non-taxability of the service. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to earlier show cause notices for non-filing of returns and recovery of service tax, establishing a pattern of non-compliance by the Appellants.

4. The Appellants attempted to argue additional points beyond the time-bar issue, but the Court restricted the submissions to the grounds of time-bar. The Court emphasized that if the Appellants wanted to challenge the Tribunal's consideration of other submissions, they should approach the Tribunal directly. The judgment highlighted that the Appellants' challenge was primarily on the ground of time-bar, as recorded in the impugned judgment.

5. Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the Appeals with no order as to costs. The judgment concluded that the factual findings supporting the Tribunal's decision on the time-bar issue were based on the material on record, and no substantial question of law arose from the Appeals.