2024 (8) TMI 475 - AT - Service Tax

Invocation of extended period of limitation - Levy of service tax - Mining Services - HELD THAT - On identical issue for the earlier period, a show-cause notice has been issued to the appellant to demand service tax by invoking extended period of limitation and in this case also, the showcause notice has been issued to the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation. Therefore, following the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AP 2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT it is held that the show-cause notice is barred by limitation. Thus, the whole of the demand confirmed against the appellant is set aside on limitation. Consequently, the impugned order deserves no merits. The same is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against demand of service tax under "Mining Services"; Allegation of suppression of taxable value leading to short payment of service tax; Appellant's contention of deduction under "Pure Agent" and non-receipt of full service charges; Applicability of principles laid down in previous Tribunal cases; Barred limitation for the present show-cause notice; Revenue's support of the impugned order.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against a demand of service tax categorized under "Mining Services," where the appellant was alleged to have suppressed taxable value, resulting in short payment of service tax. The appellant, engaged in coal production, had started paying service tax from June 1, 2007. A show-cause notice was issued, claiming non-payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 21,82,27,275 for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09. The appellant argued that the amount received from the recipient was discounted, leading to the inadvertent overstatement of service charges in the returns, and claimed deduction under the "Pure Agent" category.

The appellant contended that the demand was not sustainable as they had paid service tax on the actual amount received and revised the returns accordingly. They relied on precedents like Ceolric Services and Serco Global Services to support their argument. Additionally, they highlighted that the show-cause notice for the period in question was time-barred, citing the decision in the case of M/s Nizam Sugar Factory. On the contrary, the Revenue supported the impugned order confirming the demand.

The Tribunal observed that a show-cause notice invoking an extended period of limitation had been issued previously on a similar issue, and in this case as well, the same approach was taken. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Mills, the Tribunal held that the present show-cause notice was time-barred. Consequently, the entire demand against the appellant was set aside on grounds of limitation, leading to the dismissal of the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to statutory limitations in issuing show-cause notices and upholds the principles of fairness and legal precedents in tax matters.