https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769042 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769042 Exemption from service tax under N/N. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - Governmental Authority or not - services rendered to IIT Guwahati and M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India - adjudication order issued beyond the prescribed one-year time limit under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of IDFC First Bank Ltd. vs. Union of India, [2023 (8) TMI 1153 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while deciding whether the time limit as prescribed in Section 73 (4B) of the Act are mandatory or directory in nature, laid emphasis on the word "shall" used in the provision to hold that the time limit prescribed in Section 73 (4B) of the Act is mandatory and held 'The word 'where it is possible to do so' thus cannot be read to defeat the timelines of six months and one year as set out in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4B). Also these words cannot be construed to mean that by use of such words a complete freedom is available to the adjudicating officer to adjudicate the show cause notice at his own sweet will, much less, with such inordinate delay as in the present case which is of almost more than 12 years.' Section 73 (4B) provision of the Finance Act 1994, is pari materia the provisions of Section 11A (11) of Central Excise Act 1944 and Section 128 (9) under Customs Act 1962. Under all these Acts, the words used are "Shall" and "Where it is possible to do so" and in the Manual, it is "as far as possible". In the case of M/S. KOPERTEK METALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST (WEST) NEW DELHI [2024 (12) TMI 269 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] decided by the Principal Bench at New Delhi, it has been held that non adjudication of the order, with no reason being given to the effect that the order could not be passed on time due to circumstance beyond the control of the adjudicating authority, would be fatal to the legality of the order. In the present case, it is observed that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 15.10.2015 and the adjudication order was passed on 06.01.2017 i.e. almost after 01 year 2 months from issue of the notice. As per amended Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 06.08.2014, the time limit for issuance of Order-in-Original is a maximum of one year, even in suppression related cases.From the said Order-in-Original, it is observed that there is nothing to indicate that the appellant has in any way delayed the proceedings necessitating the ld. adjudicating authority to delay the passing of the order at his end. As the Order-in-Original in this case has been issued beyond the one-year time limit fixed for adjudication, the whole adjudication proceedings in terms of the instant Order-in-Original have become a nullity and the Order-in-Original is to be considered as non-est in law. Conclusion - i) The whole adjudication proceedings in terms of the instant Order-in-Original have become a nullity and the Order-in-Original is to be considered as non-est in law. ii) The time limit period cannot be extended endlessly without any plausible justification. iii) The Central Excise Officer 'shall' determine the amount of service tax due under section 73(2) within one year from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, and this timeline is mandatory and not merely directory. The appeal is allowed on the ground of delay in adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530