Service tax recovery under RCM dismissed on limitation grounds despite procedural violations in Form-EXP2 filing

The CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax recovery under RCM for commissions paid to foreign service providers. The appellant had filed required Form-EXP2 details with jurisdictional authorities as prescribed by Notification 18/2009-ST, despite not disclosing commission details in the Shipping Bill. The tribunal held that failure to produce documents during audit, when they were available to revenue authorities before the show cause notice, did not constitute suppression of facts. Mere procedural violation in notification compliance cannot invoke extended limitation period. Since all necessary information for determining exemption eligibility was available with revenue authorities through prescribed forms, no suppression occurred. The demand was held unsustainable on limitation grounds, and the appeal was allowed without discussing merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of Service Tax Demand
2. Recovery of Demand with Interest
3. Imposition of Penalty u/s 77(1)(C) of the Finance Act, 1994
4. Setting Aside Penalty u/s 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994
5. Imposition of Penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994
6. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation

Summary:

1. Confirmation of Service Tax Demand:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of the Service Tax demand amounting to Rs. 30,71,176/- u/s 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand arose from the appellant's failure to pay Service Tax on the commission paid to a foreign service provider, LG Electronics Inc., Korea, under the reverse charge mechanism.

2. Recovery of Demand with Interest:
The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the recovery of the confirmed demand along with interest u/s 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's non-compliance with the conditions of Exemption Notification No. 18/2009-ST was cited as the reason for the demand.

3. Imposition of Penalty u/s 77(1)(C) of the Finance Act, 1994:
The Department's appeal was allowed, and a penalty was imposed on the appellant u/s 77(1)(C) of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. Setting Aside Penalty u/s 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994:
The penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the appellant u/s 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. Imposition of Penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The penalty amounting to Rs. 30,71,176/- imposed u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

6. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal found that the demand was unsustainable due to the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The appellant had filed the requisite details in the manner prescribed by Notification No. 18/2009-ST with the jurisdictional authorities. The Tribunal held that mere procedural violations could not justify the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, to support the view that suppression of facts requires a deliberate act to evade tax, which was not evident in this case.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation, and the demand was found unsustainable. The Tribunal did not discuss the merits of the case due to the limitation issue.

---