2018 (5) TMI 1360 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax after rejection of declaration under the Voluntary Compliance Entitlement Scheme (VCES) of the ground of limitation - validity of show cause notice - extended period of limitation - Held that - appellant provided business/service during the period April, 2008 to December, 2012 and filed declaration and VCES Scheme 2013 on 19.2.2014. Thereafter, the show cause notice has been issued on 17.02.2015 by without invoking extended period of limitation and without alleging any suppression fraud or collusion on the part of the appellant - Admittedly, the show cause notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation, in that circumstances, the show cause notice is barred by the limitation. The demands pertaining to extended period of limitation are not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand of service tax, interest, and penalty
- Filing of declaration under VCES Scheme 2013
- Allegations of suppression of facts and imposition of penalties
- Barred proceedings due to limitation

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The appellant, providing business/services, had not registered with the Central Excise Department for service tax payment. A declaration was filed under the Voluntary Encouragement Scheme 2013 (VCES) in December 2013. However, this declaration was rejected for being filed beyond the time limit. A show cause notice was then issued in July 2015 demanding service tax for the period from April 2008 to December 2012, along with interest and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that the proceedings were time-barred as there was no allegation to attract certain provisions of the Finance Act.

The appellant contended that the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period and lacked allegations to justify penalties under specific sections of the Finance Act. The appellant's consultant argued that the proceedings were barred by limitation and urged setting aside the impugned order on this ground. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the appellant's actions constituted suppression of facts, justifying the demand and penalties imposed. The Revenue highlighted the rejection of the appellant's declaration under the VCES Scheme 2013.

After hearing both parties, it was observed that the show cause notice was issued without invoking the extended period of limitation and without alleging suppression, fraud, or collusion by the appellant. As a result, the notice was deemed to be time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that the demands related to the extended period were not sustainable due to the limitation issue. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside as it lacked merits. The appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.