2019 (2) TMI 343 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside service tax demand and penalties.

M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Meerut-I

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for service tax on expenses related to GTA Services and ... Extended period of limitation - Valuation - GTA Services - inclusion of expenses incurred by the assessee on loading, unloading, margin money etc. in assessable value - Held that:- The period involved is 2007-08 to 2011-12 and the show cause notice stands issued in July 2013 i.e. by invoking longer period. Further all the relevant figures were duly reflected by the appellant in the balance sheet. Balance sheet have to be considered as public document and by various decisions of the Tribunal, it stand observed that once the figures are reflected in the balance sheet, there cannot be held any mala fide on the part of the assessee with an intent to suppress anything - in the absence of any mala fide, longer period is not available to the Revenue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Whether expenses incurred by the assessee on loading, unloading, margin money etc. form part of the value of GTA Services.2. Validity of demand and penalty imposition based on the longer period of limitation.Analysis:1. The first issue in this case pertains to the inclusion of expenses incurred by the assessee in the value of GTA Services. The Lower Authorities upheld the demand for service tax on these expenses, leading to the appeal. The Revenue relied on audit objections referencing the assessee's balance sheet figures for the relevant years. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the limitation period from the date of audit in December 2012, thereby justifying the demand and penalty imposition. However, the Tribunal noted that the figures were duly reflected in the balance sheet, indicating transparency and no intent to suppress information. Consequently, the Tribunal held that in the absence of any mala fide intentions, the longer period of limitation was not applicable, leading to the setting aside of the demand and penalties.2. The second issue revolves around the validity of the demand and penalty imposition based on the longer period of limitation from 2007-08 to 2011-12. The show cause notice was issued in July 2013, invoking the longer period. The Tribunal emphasized that the figures in the balance sheet, being public documents, indicated transparency and precluded any allegations of mala fide conduct. Relying on previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal concluded that without evidence of mala fide intentions, the longer period of limitation could not be applied. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand and penalties, allowing the appeal solely on the ground of being time-barred.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD, comprising Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for service tax on expenses related to GTA Services and penalties imposed based on the longer period of limitation. The judgment highlighted the importance of transparency through balance sheet figures and the absence of mala fide intentions in determining the applicability of the limitation period.