2012 (4) TMI 231 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal confirms service tax demand for specific period, directs deposit within six weeks

M/s AUROCHEM Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

The Tribunal confirmed the service tax demand for the period from 09.7.2004 to 31.03.2005, directing the appellant to deposit an amount for the unpaid ... Demand - In the impugned order, submission that service tax was not liable prior to 09.7.2004 has been accepted and service tax demand has been confirmed for the period from 09.7.2004 to 31.03.2005 - Held that: appellant paid service tax for the period Oct 2004 to March 2005, prima-facie appellant seems to have accepted the liability. Once the liability is admitted, the appellant should have paid the tax for the period from July to Sept 2004 also - Decided against the assessee Issues:1. Liability of service tax for the period from 01.7.2003 to 31.03.2005.2. Time bar on the demand for service tax.3. Non-payment of service tax for the period July to Sept 2004.4. Appellant's liability and requirement to deposit the due amount.Analysis:1. The appellant, a partnership concern acting as a Commission Agent, was issued a show cause notice proposing service tax demand for the period from 01.7.2003 to 31.03.2005. The impugned order accepted that service tax was not liable prior to 09.7.2004 but confirmed the demand for the period from 09.7.2004 to 31.03.2005.2. The appellant had already paid the service tax amount due from Oct 2004 to March 2005, leaving only the period prior to Oct 2004 unpaid. The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 21.4.2008. Additionally, the appellant claimed that parallel proceedings were ongoing as the matter had been remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision for the same period.3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid service tax for the period from Oct 2004 onwards in March 2005 but had not paid for the period July to Sept 2004. The absence of an ST-3 return for the period prior to Oct 2004 raised questions. The Tribunal observed that since the appellant had accepted the liability by paying for Oct 2004 to March 2005, they should also pay for the period from July to Sept 2004. The appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. One lakh within six weeks and report compliance.4. In conclusion, subject to the pre-deposit being made within the specified time, the requirement of pre-deposit for the balance amount was waived, and a stay against the recovery of the balance dues was granted during the pendency of the appeal. The judgment emphasized the appellant's liability to pay the due amount for the outstanding period and the necessity to comply with the directive to deposit the specified sum.