2024 (5) TMI 522 - AT - Service Tax

Revenue appeal dismissed over Rs.9.68 crore service tax demand for cargo handling and mining services under VCES

Vijay Mining & Infra Corp Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Tax Hyderabad - GST, Chavva Vijay Sekhar Reddy Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad - GST, Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad – GST Versus Vijay Mining & Infra Corp Pvt Ltd

CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed revenue's appeal against taxpayer regarding short payment of service tax under VCES declaration. The tribunal upheld ... Short payment of tax pursuant to VCES declaration, under Sec 110 read with Sec 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 for the period up to 31.12.2012 - short payment of tax under the head Cargo Handling service and Mining service for the period 10.04.2008 to 11.08.2010 - imposition of personal penalty - detailed examination not carried out - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no detailed examination of the services rendered by the appellant for the period under dispute. In the absence of proper averments in the SCN with respect to nature of service and its classification, the demand raised as lumpsum with reference to Annexure-III to the SCN is vague. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner has rightly held the demand to be bad both on account of duplication and vagueness as well as hit by limitation. It is found that learned Commissioner has rightly observed that the appellant has not been put to proper notice seeking correct classification of services. Further, evidently, SCN dt.08.10.2014 covered the period up to 2010-11 under various heads, including ‘mining service’, ‘GTA service’, etc., which was issued less than 3 months prior to the present SCN dt.30.12.2014. Thus, Revenue was fully aware of the affairs of the appellant while issuing the previous SCN dt.08.10.2014 and hence, the department cannot take the plea in the subsequent SCN that the demand is with respect to some missed out services or category of service - the learned Commisisoner has rightly dropped the demand of Rs.9,68,42,681/-. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of demand of service tax under VCES declaration.2. Imposition of personal penalty on the Director.3. Dropping of alleged demand under Cargo Handling and Mining services.Summary:1. Confirmation of demand of service tax under VCES declaration:Appeal No. ST/30340/2017 was filed by the appellant company against the confirmation of demand of service tax of Rs.6,11,70,185/- alleging short payment of tax pursuant to VCES declaration, u/s 110 read with u/s 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 for the period up to 31.12.2012. The appellant had declared unpaid tax dues of Rs.19,93,75,679/- under VCES but failed to deposit 50% of the tax dues by 31.12.2013, rendering them ineligible for the scheme. The department issued a SCN dt.30.12.2014 alleging the declaration was substantially false, leading to the demand of Rs.6,11,70,185/-. The appellant argued that the amount was miscalculated as the Revenue did not consider payments made through Cenvat credit. The VCES declaration was rejected by Revenue, and the demand was later settled under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019.2. Imposition of personal penalty on the Director:Appeal No. ST/30341/2017 was filed by the Director of the appellant company against the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant company and its director, setting aside the impugned order and entitling the assessees to consequential benefits in accordance with the law.3. Dropping of alleged demand under Cargo Handling and Mining services:Appeal No. ST/30371/2017 was filed by the Revenue against the dropping of alleged demand of Rs.9,68,42,681/- for short payment of tax under Cargo Handling service and Mining service for the period 10.04.2008 to 11.08.2010. The Commissioner observed that the same demand was covered by an earlier SCN dt.08.10.2014, thus invoking the extended period of limitation was not sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, citing the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nizam Sugar Factory vs CCE, AP [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)], and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the appellant company and its director, setting aside the impugned order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal as being without any merits.(Pronounced in the Open Court on 08.04.2024)