2009 (3) TMI 177 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT rules for consignment agent on service tax liability, emphasizing good faith

SUNIL METAL CORPORATION Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., & CUS., RAJKOT

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, ruled in favor of the appellant, a consignment agent, in a case concerning the liability to pay service tax as ... Period of limitation of one year – Demand of service tax - appellants submits that service tax for the period 2001-02 to 2004-05 stands confirmed against them by way of issuance of show cause notice on 31-8-2006, by holding the applicants, who are consignment agents, liable to pay tax as, Clearing and Forwarding Agents – held that - It is well settled law that, when there are favourable or contradictory decisions holding the field, entertaining bona fide belief by an assessee cannot be faulted upon – demand beyond the normal period of limitation set aside – penalty waived. Issues:1. Interpretation of law regarding liability of consignment agents to pay service tax under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agents.2. Impact of contradictory decisions on assessee's liability for suppression or misstatement.3. Justifiability of demand of duty beyond the normal period of limitation.4. Setting aside penalty under Section 78 by invoking Section 80.Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of law concerning the liability of consignment agents to pay service tax as Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The appellant argued that during the relevant period, the Tribunal had interpreted the law in favor of consignment agents, exempting them from tax liability. Reference was made to the case of Mahavir Generics v. CCE, Bangalore, which supported the appellant's position. However, a Larger Bench decision in the case of Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. overruled the previous interpretation, leading to contradictory decisions. The Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting decisions and held that the appellant, as an assessee, could not be faulted for holding a bona fide belief based on the prevailing interpretations.2. The Tribunal considered the impact of contradictory decisions on the assessee's liability for suppression or misstatement. It was noted that when there are conflicting judgments in the field, the assessee cannot be deemed guilty of suppression or misstatement. In this context, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that the demand of duty beyond the normal period of limitation was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the genuine belief held by the assessee in light of contradictory legal interpretations.3. Regarding the justifiability of the demand of duty beyond the normal period of limitation, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. Citing the conflicting decisions and the bona fide belief of the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the lower authorities for re-quantification of duty. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that an assessee should not be penalized for acting in good faith based on prevailing legal interpretations.4. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the penalty under Section 78 by invoking the provisions of Section 80. The penalty under Section 78 was set aside in line with the Tribunal's overall decision to consider the appellant's genuine belief and the impact of contradictory legal interpretations. By invoking Section 80, the Tribunal ensured that the penalty was waived, aligning with the broader rationale of not penalizing the assessee for following a reasonable interpretation of the law.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad highlighted the significance of considering conflicting legal interpretations, the bona fide belief of the assessee, and the limitations on demanding duty and imposing penalties in such circumstances.