2016 (11) TMI 784 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal rejected due to time-barred Service Tax liability

The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur regarding Service Tax liability for the ... Service Tax liability - Maintenance and Repair Services - limitation under Section 73 - relevant date for issuance of show cause notice - self assessment and filing of returns - half yearly return - time barredLimitation under Section 73 - relevant date for issuance of show cause notice - half yearly return - time barred - Show cause notice dated 20.04.2009 for the period 01.10.2003 to 09.09.2004 was not time barred. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority's finding, adopted by the Tribunal, applies the statutory concept of 'relevant date' for issuance of a recovery notice under Section 73(6). Returns under the Service Tax Rules were required to be filed half yearly (quarterly returns having been replaced by half yearly returns from 16.10.1998). Since no periodic return was filed for the period in question, the relevant date is the last date for filing the half yearly return and, on that basis, the five year limitation permitted issuance of the show cause notice up to 25.04.2009. The show cause notice issued on 20.04.2009 therefore falls within the limitation period and cannot be treated as time barred. [Paras 6]Show cause notice validly issued within limitation and not time barred.Service Tax liability - Maintenance and Repair Services - self assessment and filing of returns - Assessee was liable to pay service tax for services rendered during 01.10.2003 to 09.09.2004 and the appeal against the demand lacks merit. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal records that the appellant undisputedly rendered maintenance and repair services to clients and had not discharged Service Tax for the period despite being registered and receiving departmental reminders. Further, the appellant had earlier discharged tax for other periods and for subsequent periods accepted liability, supporting the conclusion of taxable liability for the period in issue. In view of these facts and the valid issuance of the show cause notice, there is no merit in the appeal. [Paras 4, 7]Assessee's liability for service tax for the stated period affirmed; appeal rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the impugned order upholding the demand for Service Tax for the period 01.10.2003 to 09.09.2004 is affirmed. Issues: Service Tax liability for the period 01.10.2003 to 09.09.2004 under the category of 'Maintenance and Repair Services'; Contention of the appellant regarding limitation of the Service Tax liability.In this case, the appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur regarding the Service Tax liability for the period 01.10.2003 to 09.09.2004 under the category of 'Maintenance and Repair Services.' Despite the absence of any representation from the appellant, the appeal was taken up for disposal. The Departmental Representative was heard, and the records were perused.The main issue revolved around the Service Tax liability during the specified period. It was noted that the appellant had rendered services to their clients but had not paid the Service Tax despite registration and reminders from the department. The appellant contended that the Service Tax liability was time-barred due to the show-cause notice being dated 20.04.2009.The first appellate authority correctly determined that the show-cause notice was issued within the limitation period of five years. The authority explained that the relevant date for issuing the notice is determined based on the rules and regulations under the Act. In this case, the show-cause notice was issued within the permissible timeframe, as the appellant had not filed the necessary returns on time. The appellate authority found no inconsistency in the findings and noted that the appellant had acknowledged the Service Tax liability for other periods.Considering the factual position and the legal aspects, it was concluded that there were no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court.