2019 (4) TMI 1203 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - Business Auxiliary Services or not - multi-level marketing activities - HELD THAT - The issue covered by the decision in the case of PARAMJIT KAUR VERSUS C.S.T., DELHI 2018 (4) TMI 962 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that Since the issue relates to interpretation of the taxability of service, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the service tax demand. The demand to be barred by limitation, except a part of the period, for which the matter is being remanded to the lower authorities for quantification of the demand falling within the limitation period - penalty set aside - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax confirmation under Business Auxiliary Services for multi-level marketing activities.
2. Invocation of longer period of limitation for demand raised.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the confirmation of service tax against the appellant under the category of Business Auxiliary Services due to their multi-level marketing activities. The appellant's representative acknowledged a previous Tribunal decision against them but argued that the demand period exceeded the normal limitation period. Citing a relevant case, the representative contended that no malafide intent could be attributed to the appellant, and thus, the longer period of limitation should not apply. Additionally, reliance was placed on another Tribunal decision to support this argument.

2. The authorized representative for the Revenue countered by stating that the appellant had not disclosed their activities, justifying the invocation of the longer period of limitation. Reference was made to a specific Tribunal decision where penalties were upheld on an assessee for similar non-disclosure. The Tribunal noted that while there was no dispute regarding the taxability of the activities, the issue revolved around the invocation of the longer period. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation should not have been invoked for confirming the service tax demand. Consequently, the Tribunal held the demand to be barred by limitation, except for a specific period, which was remanded to lower authorities for quantification. The penalty was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.