9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The appellants herein M/s. Sudhakar Plastic Ltd. seeks to vacate the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad - III which sustained the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants are registered with the department as an assessee paying tax on services under the category 'Goods Transport Agency' in terms of rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 as a recipient of the said services. During the years 2002-03 and 2003-04, the appellants were found to have rendered taxable services falling under the category "Clearing and Forwarding Agent" without following the statutory formalities including payment of service tax due. After due process of law, the Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,01,722 from the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly taken the date of filing of ST 3 returns for GTA service for the purpose of computation of limitation in respect of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agents' service. They had not registered as a provider of the said service in order to file any return in that regard. It is submitted that in the instant case one year period for the purpose of issue of show-cause notice had to be computed from the date on which service tax was to be paid as per the provisions of the Act or the Rules as prescribed under subclause (6) of section 73 of the Act. As the relevant date for computation of limitation was 5-4-2004, being a date on which service tax was to be paid for the month of March 2004 and the relevant date for filing the return being 25-4-2004, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of penalties, it is contended that the show-cause notice does not indicate anything to show that there was an attempt to evade payment of duty warranting application of extended period. From the foregoing discussion and facts it is clearly evident that the appellants had suppressed the fact of their acting as consignment agent, clearly with intent to evade payment of service tax. The adjudication authority, might have erred in taking the date of the return filed for GTA service in computing limitation but the fact remains that the appellants have not registered, and have not paid service tax though the activity undertaken by them attracts service tax. It is pertinent to mention here that taking recourse to an incorrect provision of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that extended period is applicable without matching proposals in the showcause notice. The demand therefore, cannot be sustained. I also find that in TIL Ltd. v. CST [2008] 16 STT 46 (Kol. - CESTAT), the Tribunal vacated the demand impugned before them by the appellants therein with the following observations : "In view of our finding as above, we are of the view that since the basis of calculation of the demand has not been given to the appellants, nor the longer period of limitation has been invoked specifically in the show-cause notice, the proceedings flowing from such a defective show-cause notice, are neither legal nor proper. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation without going into the quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
