2023 (10) TMI 880 - AT - Service Tax

Appropriation of amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, which the appellant had deposited during the investigation itself - time limitation - HELD THAT - As far as the assertion that part of the demand was issued beyond the normal period of limitation is concerned, as is evident from the dates indicated, the SCN has not been issued for any period beyond 18 months from the relevant date, which was the normal period of limitation during the period of the SCN. Therefore, there is no case to reduce the demand as prayed for by the appellant. Consequently, there is no case to reduce penalty proportionately. As far as the appropriation of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- admittedly deposited by the appellant during the investigation is concerned, it is seen that this amount should have been appropriated in the impugned order. Appeal allowed in part to the extent that an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- deposited by the appellant stands appropriated against the confirmed demand. The remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the change of address notification, non-appearance of the appellant in multiple hearings, service tax liability, penalty imposition, time limitation for issuing notice, and appropriation of deposited amount.

Change of Address Notification:
The appellant notified a change of address, and a notice was sent to the new address, which was served upon the appellant after a certain period.

Non-Appearance of Appellant:
The appellant failed to appear in multiple scheduled hearings, leading to the decision to proceed with the appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant.

Service Tax Liability and Penalty Imposition:
The appellant was found to have not discharged its service tax liability adequately, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice demanding service tax, interest, and penalties under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

Time Limitation for Issuing Notice:
The appellant contested the demands primarily on the ground of limitation, arguing that part of the demand was beyond the normal period of limitation. However, the authorized representative for the Revenue argued that the notice was issued within the normal period of limitation.

Appropriation of Deposited Amount:
The appellant had deposited a certain amount during the investigation, which was proposed to be appropriated against the demand of service tax. The appellant contested that the impugned order did not appropriately reflect this appropriation.

The Commissioner confirmed the demands as proposed in the show cause notice, along with interest and penalties under relevant sections of the Act. The appellant contested the demands on the grounds of limitation. The authorized representative for the Revenue argued that the notice was issued within the normal period of limitation, refuting the appellant's claims. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, appropriating the deposited amount against the confirmed demand and upholding the rest of the impugned order.