TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed due to absence of fraudulent intent, setting aside service tax order. Time-barred demands. Compliance with income tax.</h1> <h3>OM SAI PROFESSIONAL DETECTIVE & SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. Versus CCE, GUNTUR</h3> OM SAI PROFESSIONAL DETECTIVE & SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. Versus CCE, GUNTUR - 2008 (87) RLT 549 (CESTAT - Ban.) , 2008 (12) S.T.R. 79 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Allegation of suppression of facts leading to confirmation of service tax invoking a larger period.2. Appellant's contention of no suppression of facts due to voluntary payment of service tax.3. Department's argument regarding the liability of the assessee despite voluntary payment.4. Consideration of the time bar for confirming the demand.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the Order-in-Original confirming service tax by invoking a larger period based on the allegation of suppression of facts. The appellant, providing security services, argued against the suppression of facts, highlighting that services were rendered between 01.04.1999 to 31.3.2003, while the show cause notice was issued on 17.02.2006, beyond the normal limitation period. They contended that they voluntarily paid service tax from January 2005 onwards, believing their assessment method was correct. The appellant emphasized the absence of intent to evade tax, citing compliance with income tax procedures and referencing relevant case laws and the Tribunal's ruling in CCE Vs. Jalani Enterprises [2001 (134) E.L.T. 813 (T)].2. The Department, represented by the DR, raised concerns about the acceptance of the appellant's plea by the Department, emphasizing that mere information provision does not absolve the assessee from liability. The Department argued that the voluntary payment of service tax should have been made earlier to avoid allegations of suppression of facts and confirm the demand.3. After considering both sides' submissions, the Member (Judicial) noted that the appellants had voluntarily paid service tax from January 2005 onwards, with the Department issuing a show cause notice in 2006 for the period from 1.4.1999 to 31.03.2003. Acknowledging the appellant's lack of intent to evade tax and their compliance with income tax procedures, the Member (Judicial) agreed with the Commissioner's acceptance of the plea. Consequently, the Member (Judicial) concluded that the demands were time-barred, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.4. The judgment focused on the crucial issue of time limitation in confirming the demand, emphasizing the appellant's voluntary payment history, absence of fraudulent intent, and compliance with income tax procedures as factors contributing to the decision to set aside the order. The detailed analysis considered the legal precedents cited by the appellant, the Department's argument regarding liability, and the overall circumstances leading to the conclusion that the demands were time-barred, warranting the appeal's allowance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
