9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) and Rs. 52,410/- each under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act. The facts of the case are that the appellants had rendered taxable service as a "practising chartered accountant" since 6-10-98 but had not registered himself as an assessee with the department nor followed statutory formalities including payment of service tax. During the investigation conducted by the department, Shri M. Moorthy admitted his above failures. After due process of law, the original authority demanded the tax due, the applicable interest and imposed penalties mentioned above. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) found that the appellant had knowingly avoided paying tax legitimately due to the exche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department was not barred by any order of the High Court from issuing the demand notice earlier. The demand for the period beyond the normal period was barred by limitation. The appellant relied on the following case law on the plea of limitation. (a) Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. v. CCE, Bombay, 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (b) Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) (c) Cosmic Dye Chemicals v. CCE, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 3. Reiterating the grounds taken in the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the matter may be remanded to the original authority for re-quantifying the demand for the normal period. 4. Ld. JCDR submits that the appellant had all along accepted his liability to pay the tax for the services he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E, Delhi reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 522 (Tribunal) = 2006-TIOL-92-CESTAT-Del. and JSL Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 316, in support of the plea of limitation. I find that in the cited decisions the Tribunal had held that invocation of extended period of limitation was barred in SCNs issued beyond the normal period of the department coming to know of the tax liability of a defaulter. 6. I find considerable merit in the argument of the appellant that the provisions of Section 73 as they existed when the Section was invoked were relevant and material to the proceedings. Corresponding provisions which had been replaced could not be pressed into service when they ceased to be part of the statute. The new Section 73 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion into the matter, it has to be examined if larger period could be validly invoked to raise the demand in view of the case law National Steels v. CCE, Delhi [2006 (205) E.L.T. 522 (Tribunal) = 2006-TIOL-92-CESTAT-Del.] and JSL Industries Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (109) E.L.T. 316] cited. It is clear that the issuance of the SCN was not stayed by the High Court and the limitation has to be reckoned from the date of issue of SCN. The matter is remanded for a fresh decision on the liability of the appellants to the service tax, interest and penalties. Needless to say that the appellants shall be afforded an effective hearing before a decision is taken. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Operative part of the Order is pronounced in the open Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
