9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1386 - AT - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - Business Auxiliary Services - certain amounts received from M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. on account of extended warranty, true value service, bank commission and insurance commission - Held that - In the case of City Motors & Financial Services 2011 (11) TMI 409 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , it was observed that the issue was not clear from doubt and was interpreted by judicial forums in different ways. In such a situation extended period cannot be invoked for raising the demand. Inasmuch as in the present appeal the demand stand raised and confirmed by invoking longer period of limitation and by applying ratio of the above decision, such extended period was not available to the Revenue and accordingly demand is required to be held as barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Taxability of amounts received by the appellant from M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2. Confirmation of demand of service tax by the Revenue. 3. Reduction of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 4. Imposition of penalty under Section 77 of the Act. 5. Applicability of extended period for raising the demand. 6. Disposal of appeals by the Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: Issue 1: Taxability of amounts received by the appellant from M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. The appellant was registered for providing services under the category of servicing of motor vehicle and Renting of Immovable Property. The Revenue proposed to confirm the demand of duty against the appellant, considering the amounts received from M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. on account of extended warranty, true value service, bank commission, and insurance commission as taxable under "Business Auxiliary Services." The Original Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice for service tax amounting to ?38,80,999/- for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of demand of service tax based on previous Tribunal decisions. Issue 2: Confirmation of demand of service tax by the Revenue The Appellate Authority reduced the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act to ?19,99,217/- from the total amount deposited by the appellant. He also set aside the penalties imposed under Section 77 of the Act, considering the appellant's regular filing of ST-3 returns. The appellant challenged the order on merit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) found no valid ground for the challenge based on previous Tribunal decisions. Issue 3: Reduction of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act The Appellate Tribunal found that the demand was raised and confirmed by invoking a longer period of limitation. Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal held that the extended period was not available to the Revenue, and thus, the demand was required to be held as barred by limitation. The Tribunal set aside the demand and penalty on the ground of limitation, allowing the appellant's appeal. Issue 4: Disposal of appeals by the Appellate Tribunal The Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal, which was for the enhancement of penalty, became infructuous and was dismissed. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the decision announced on 20/11/2018. This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents in determining tax liabilities and penalties, as well as the application of limitation periods in tax matters. The Tribunal's careful consideration of previous decisions and the specific circumstances of the case led to the setting aside of the demand and penalties based on the limitation period.
|
