TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1994 (Act) along with appropriate interest and equivalent penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act as well as a penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant is engaged in providing accounting and payroll services to their associated enterprise M/s Executive Ship Management Pte Singapore (ESM Pte). The appellant is registered with Service Tax department under Service Tax Registration No.AAFCB2123BSD001. The appellant and ESM Pte are group companies belonging to ESM Holdings Hong Kong (ESM Holdings). Based on Intelligence that the appellant has not paid service tax on the accounting and payroll services provided by them to their associated enterprise ESM Pte, by claiming the same as export of services, Officers of Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Chennai commenced their investigation, conducted search proceedings as well as recorded statement from the chartered accountant of the appellant. It was observed that M/s. ESM Pte has entered into contracts with various ships / Ship Owners and ESM Pte is engaged in providing ship crew recruitment and management services to these ships/ Ship O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....services". Since the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions of Rule 6A(1)(d) and 6A(1)(f) of the Service Tax Rules, 1944, the services rendered by the appellant to ESM Pte cannot be treated as "export of services" and hence the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the services provided by them. The department further held the view that the above facts regarding the non payment of Service Tax on the taxable services provide by the appellant came to the notice of the department only when conducting the investigation and the appellant appears to have suppressed relevant and vital facts from the department with malafide intention to evade service tax. In view of the above, the department issued Show Cause Notice No. 18/2020 dated 23.06.2020 invoking extended period of limitation. The appellant replied contesting the demands and after due process of law, the adjudicating authority passed the Order in Original No.29/2021-JC dated 13.08.2021 confirming the demand of Service Tax along with appropriate interest and equivalent penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act as well as a penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by the said OIO, the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng its services on back-to back basis for all the contracts entered into/to be entered into by ESS Pte with the vessel owners as manager for the purposes of rendering ship management and crew management services. (c) ESS Pte in turn uses the services rendered by ESM Pte to render technical management and crew management services to the ships/shipping lines in terms of the ship management agreement entered into with them. 7. Thus, the Ld. Counsel submits, while both ESS Pte and ESM Pte are engaged in providing technical management and crew management services, the Appellant merely renders one part of only one aspect of such services Le, accounting and payroll services. 8. In his written submissions, the Ld. Counsel depicted the flow of services and the services performed by each entity as under: 9. The services rendered by the Appellant were governed by Service Agreement of 2013 and Service Agreement of 2016. The coverage of services under both agreements are tabulated as under: Particulars Service Agreement between the Appellant and ESM Pte (2013) Service Agreement between the Appellant and ESM Pte (2016) Agreement Service Agreement dt. 1st April....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expenses as per the accounting codes given by ESM Pte. 6. To obtain necessary invoices, delivery receipts, payment receipts or any other supporting vouchers with respect to expenses incurred by ESM Pte or any other nominated by ESM Pte. 7. To prepare and provide various accounting reports to ESM Pte as per list below: a. Statement of accounts including Trial Balances/ Balance Sheet b. Variance reports c. Settlement reports like quarterly, semiannually, annually d. Estimated expenses reports e. Statement of Lub Oil purchased, consumed and closing stock f. Reports for variance insurance claims like P & I, H & M etc. 8. To retain the copies of the reports and supporting of the expenses for a period mutually agreed between both the parties and provide them upon request by ESM Pte. Fees and Payment for Services Applicable Costs plus 8.70% and plus taxes, if any Applicable Costs plus 6.50% and plus taxes, if any 10. The Ld. Counsel submits that from the above it is evident that ESM Pte is in the business of rendition of technical management and crew management services, it had appointed the Appellant to independently provide accounting and payroll ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the consideration so earned by the Appellant has no correlation with the occurrence or otherwise of supply of goods/services from vendors to ESM Pte or from ESM Pte to ESS Pte/ship owners and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant is arranging or facilitating the underlying supply of goods/services from vendors to ESM Pte or from ESM Pte to ESS Pte/Ship owners. The Appellant is bound to earn its monthly income, even if ESM Pte Singapore does not earn any income from its clients. It is settled position that in cases where consideration is charged as cost plus mark up, the assessee does not act as an intermediary as the services had no direct nexus with the underlying supply. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Verizon India Pvt Ltd v CST, 2021 (45) GSTL 275 (Tri-Del) and Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt Ltd v CCE, Belapur, 2019 (22) GSTL 355 (Tri-Mumbai). 13. It is a well-established position that ESM Pte. and the Appellant are two separate legal persons and not establishment of a single legal person. In view of the above extract, it is evident that a subsidiary and a holding company or group companies are not covered by the abovementioned provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Genpact India Pvt Ltd v UOI & Ors, 2023 (77) GSTL 512 (P & H), Integreon Managed Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Mumbai East, 2023 (4) TMI 1074-CESTAT MUMBAI and Black Rock Service India Private Limited v Commissioner of CGST. 17. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding that the services provide by the appellant are not export of services as both the appellant and ESM Pte are merely establishment of distinct persons. It is submitted that the appellant and the ESM Pte are company registered under separate laws and have their own individual identity. That the appellant and ESM Pte are not direct holding and subsidiary companies, but even in case if such a relationship exists, where the holding company directly controls 100% of the subsidiary, there are judicial precedents wherein it has been undeniably held that even in case of holding and subsidiary companies the explanation (b) to Section 65B(44) would not be applicable for the reason that the two entities are separate companies. That in the present case the appellant and ESM Pte are not even hold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of services". 20. The Ld. Counsel submits that the appellant has secured favourable judgements in the Appellant's' own case under GST which dealt with the same service agreement for the period from 1st July 2017 and governed by service agreement, 2016 as well as in the case of group companies rendering other services sub-contracted by ESM Pte, namely, in respect of ESM India by Final order No.A/85492/2024 dated 14.05.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No.86879 of 2021 in the case of Executive Ship Management Pvt Ltd v Comr. of CGST & CE, Navi Mumbai; the Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Thane Commissionerate vide Order No.61/AKS-10/TH-CGST/2024-25 dated 11th July, 2024 has held that services rendered by a group company NKPS were not intermediary services and would be treated as export of service under GST and that GST authorities have also granted refund at various instances through GST refund orders and the Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai vide Order in Original No.21/2025-DGGI (ADC) dated 17.01.2025 has in the Appellant's own case held that accounting and payroll services provided by it would not qualify as 'intermediary' service and would be tre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no question of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement on the part of the Appellant as the Department was fully aware of the nature and scope of the services rendered by the Appellant and the basis of its claim of exemption and therefore the invoking of extended period of limitation is unjustified. 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that even otherwise the scope of intermediary is a matter of interpretation and is a contentious issue and the question of alleging mala fide does not arise. Reliance is place on the decision M/s. Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh [2018-TIO-1849-CESTAT-CHD], LANXESS ABS Ltd. vs Commissioner [2010(259) ELT 551 (Tribunal)]. The Ld. Counsel says that the appellant was under bona fide belief as regards the non-taxability and place reliance on the decisions in Commissioner of Customs vs. Reliance Industries Limited (2015 (325) E.L.T. 223 (S.C.). 25. He further submits that for the reasons that the impugned order has failed to bring out any malafide or wilful intention on the part of the appellant, penalty is also not imposable and places reliance on decisions in Collector ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocks Private Limited (Trading Division) Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Coimbatore Commissionerate - 2023 (11) TMI 898 - CESTAT CHENNAI, wherein it was observed that the word "on behalf" in the statue connote an agency when one person acts on behalf of the other. The former acts as an agent of the latter. An agency is the relationship of principal and agent in terms of a contract - express or implied. The Ld. AR submits that it is the matter of record that clauses after clauses in the duties of Appellant as per Contract refers to "On behalf of". Ld. A.R. contended that the Appellant is under obligation to act on behalf of, to act on approval of, to act upon request of, to liase on behalf of Main service provider. 30. The Ld. AR submits that the issue of non-fulfilment of condition laid down in Rule 6A(1)(d) has been discussed by the Adjudicating Authority. Place of provision of Intermediary Service is the location of Service Provider and in instant case, service provider is located in India and therefore, place of provision is within India. In view of above, as per Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules,1994, since place of service for such activities being in the nature....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted as relied upon. 34. The issues that arise for determination are : A. Whether the Demand is wholly barred by limitation as contended by the Appellant? B. If the demand is not barred by limitation, then on merits the issues that arise for consideration are whether the appellant is an intermediary as defined in Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 ( POPS Rules) and also whether the services rendered by the Appellant to M/s. ESM Pte can be treated as Export of Services as per Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (STR Rules)? 35. When a plea that the demand is wholly barred by limitation is raised, we find it apposite to deal with the said issue first. The question of limitation goes to the root of the matter and involves a question of jurisdiction to raise the demand itself in the first instance. This in turn is premised on the provisions of law that prescribe the situations as well as the attendant ingredients thereto that attract its application. The findings of fact on the question of jurisdiction would be a jurisdictional fact. Such a jurisdictional question therefore needs to be examined and is to be determined having regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the said section shall have effect as if, for the word "thirty months", the word "five years" has been substituted. 38. The "relevant date‟ has been defined in section 73 (6) of the Finance Act as follows: " 73 (6) For the purposes of this section, "relevant date" means, - (i) in the case of taxable service in respect of which service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid- (a) where under the rules made under this Chapter, a periodical return, showing particulars of service tax paid during the period to which the said return relates, is to be filed by an assessee, the date on which such return is so filed; (b) where no periodical return as aforesaid is filed, the last date on which such return is to be filed under the said rules; (c) in any other case, the date on which the service tax is to be paid under this Chapter or the rules made thereunder; (ii) in a case where the service tax is provisionally assessed under this Chapter or the rules made there under, the date of adjustment of the service tax after the final assessment thereof; (iii) in a case where any sum, relatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of eighteen months or five years, as the case may be." 21. The meaning of the words 'wilful misstatement' and 'suppression of facts' has been a subject matter of judicial scrutiny in various Supreme Court judgments which are necessary to be discussed before proceeding to the merits of this case. However, these words have been interpreted as given in Sections 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Customs Act") and 11A of the [Central] Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Excise Act"). In order to determine if the same interpretation extends to Section 73 of the Act the following decisions of the Supreme Court have to be looked at. In the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [(2013) 9 SCC 753 = 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] the Supreme Court discussed its previous judgments to determine the applicability of the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act for extension of limitation period for issuing notice for payment of duties that have not been levied, short-levied or erroneously refunded. The relevant paragrap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its action to be legal in the eyes of law, can only take refuge under the proviso to the section." 22. Section 28 of the Customs Act like Section 73 of the Act (in this case) relates to notice for payment of duty that has not been levied, short-levied or erroneously refunded. The proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act and the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act, both set out conditions for extension of limitation period for issuing of a Show Cause Notice. The difference between the two sections lies in the insertion of conditions of 'fraud' and 'contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of Service Tax' in Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. In Uniworth (supra), the Supreme Court discussed the interpretation of the proviso of a similar provision in Section 11A of the Excise Act and held that it is pari materia to the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act. The relevant paragraphs are excerpted below : "13. This Court, in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1995 Supp (3) SCC 462], while interpreting the proviso of an analogous provision in Section 11A of T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isstatement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitutes a permissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section 11A. Misstatement or suppression of fact must be wilful. The aforesaid observations show that the words "with intent to evade payment of duty" were of utmost relevance while construing the earlier expression regarding the misstatement or suppression of facts contained in the proviso. Reading the proviso as a whole the Court held that intent to evade duty was essentially before the proviso could be invoked. 55. Though it was sought to be contended that Section 28 of the Customs Act is in pari materia with Section 11A of the Excise Act, we find there is one material difference in the language of the two provisions and that is the words "with intent to evade payment of duty" occurring in proviso to Section 11A of the Excise Act which are missing in Section 28(1) of the Customs Act and the proviso in particular.... 56. The proviso to Section 28 can inter alia be invoked when any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied by reason of collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer or the exporter, his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgments of the Supreme Court interpreting the proviso to Section 11A of the Excise Act were applied in the interpretation of the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act. 25. The meaning of the phrase pari materia has been explained in an American case in the following words: "Statutes are in pari materia which relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things. The word par must not be confounded with the word simlis. It is used in opposition to it - intimating not likeness merely but identity. It is a phrase applicable to public statutes or general laws made at different times and in reference to the same subject." [United Society v. Eagle Bank, (1829) 7 Connecticut 457, p. 470, as cited in CRAIES, Statute Law, p. 134 (7th Edition)]. The provisos to Sections 11A of the Excise Act, 28 of the Customs Act and Section 73 of the Finance Act, refer to the same class of persons, i.e., persons from whom tax has been not been levied, or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded. The subject matter of these provisos is issuance of a Show Cause Notice in order to collect such tax. Further, there seems to be no difference in language of the proviso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and for duty in relation to extended period is mentioned in the proviso to Section 11A(1). Under that proviso, in cases where excise duty has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded on account of fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or in contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules with the intent to evade payment of duty, demand can be made within five years from the relevant date. In the present case, we are concerned with the proviso to Section 11A(1). 24. In the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [(1995) 6 SCC 117], this Court held that intention to evade duty must be proved for invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) for extended period of limitation. It has been further held that intent to evade duty is built into the expression "fraud and collusion" but misstatement and suppression is qualified by the preceding word "wilful". Therefore, it is not correct to say that there can be suppression or misstatement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitutes a permissible ground for invoking the proviso to Section 11A. 25. In case of Pushpam Pharmace....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 73(1) does not refer to a scenario where there is a mere omission or mere failure to pay duty or take out a license without the presence of such intention. 28. In the present case, the Revenue argues that appellant wilfully suppressed the value of taxable services and thus did not discharge its liability of paying the Service Tax on same. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant was under a bona fide belief that the appellant was not liable for payment of Service Tax for the Mandap Keeping and Management, Maintenance and Repair Services. The appellant has supported the non-payment of Service Tax for Mandap Keeper Services by Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. It also states that, during the enquiry itself, it paid Service Tax on the sale of the above-mentioned items for the periods 2004-05 and 2005-06 with interest and had also started paying Service Tax on these items regularly from April, 2006. The same has been also acknowledged by the DGCEI in the SCN. 29. As regards management, maintenance and repair services the appellant claimed that it was unaware of the development under Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act and that when the same came to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by limitation has been addressed by the appellate authority in para 12 of the impugned Order in Appeal, as under: "12. The appellant has contended against invocation of extended period of limitation stating that the matter involves legal interpretation, bonafide belief, genuine error etc. The transactions of the appellant being of such nature giving scope to more than one view has not been taken up at all for resolution with advance ruling authority or with the Department by the Appellant. Service tax law clearly casts a responsibility of self-assessment on the assessee/appellant. Further by declaring the services rendered as "export of service.", the appellant escaped scrutiny as well. Whether the appellant has acted in error or ignorance, it could not be an excuse as held in the case of D. Cowasji [1978 (2) ELT J154 (SC)] that "We are not quite sure that if the maxim that everyone is presumed to know the law is applied, there will be any case of payment under a mistake of law unless that presumption is rebutted in the first instance, for, the moment it is assumed that everyone is presumed to know the law, it is clear that no one can make a mistake as to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner of C.Ex (Adjudication), 2018 (12) GSTL 368 (Del.), reproduced above, but are also against the decisions rendered by this Tribunal as elucidated infra. 43. At this juncture, it would be apposite to notice the decision of a coordinate bench of the tribunal in Accurate Chemical Industries v CCE, Noida, reported in 2014(300) ELT 451 (Tri-Del), wherein, the question of the effect of non-scrutiny of the returns filed by the assessee upon self-assessment was examined in detail. The relevant portions are as under: " 7.1 Though with effect from 1-10-1996, self-assessment has been introduced and the monthly ER-1 return filed by an assessee are not required to be assessed by the Range Superintendent (RO), in terms of the following instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) not only every ER-1 return filed by an assessee is required to be scrutinized by the RO for correctness of rate of duty applied to the goods cleared, arithmetical accuracy of duties/amounts dues and payable; Cenvat credit availment, valuation etc., this scrutiny must be completed within 3 months and the returns of the units whose annual duty payment is Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 5 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oducts v. Collector reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.); Pushpam Pharmaceuticals v. CCE reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.); Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.); Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) has held that something positive other than mere inaction or non-payment of duty is required for invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) and that suppression means failure to disclose full information with intent to evade the payment of duty and mere omission to give certain information is not suppression of fact unless it is deliberate with intention to evade the payment of duty. The above condition for invoking extended period prescribed in these judgments is not satisfied in this case." (emphasis supplied) 44. We are of the view that allowing the assessee to self-assess the tax is a mere facility extended to the assessee. That in no way detracts or dilutes the statutory responsibility of the jurisdictional central excise officers to ensure correctness of the assessment, exemptions claimed and duty payments made. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kewise, we find that in a case where revenue had preferred the appeals on the ground that the respondents in their monthly ER returns filed for the relevant period, have simply shown the quantum of credit availed on inputs without specifying the service on which the said credit was availed, and that therefore this would amount to suppression from the department with intent to avail wrongful credit, a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in its decision in CCE, Indore v Medicaps Ltd, reported in 2011(24) STR 572 (Tri-Del) has held as under: 4. We find no merits in the above contention of the revenue. Admittedly the credit availed by the assessee was reflected in the monthly returns. If there is no column in the monthly return to show the nature of service on which the credit was availed, the assessee cannot be blamed for not disclosing the said fact. For invoking the longer period of limitation, there has to be a suppression or mis-statement with an intent to evade payment of duty. When the respondents have reflected the amount of credit availed by them in their monthly returns, it cannot be said that there was any positive act of suppression on misstatement on their part. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdictional range officers to carry out their mandated responsibility and detect any irregularities, if at all any. In the light of the ratio of the decisions stated supra, when the knowledge of the fact that the appellant has been claiming the said amounts received as towards export of service duly reflecting them in the returns, was already known to the Department, we are of the view that the learned adjudicating authority has egregiously erred in finding that the invoking of the extended period of limitation was tenable. 48. We find that the Bonafide belief of the appellant that has manifested as the appellant's declaration of the amounts received as towards export of service provided in the ST-3 returns filed with the Department, was also averred by the Chartered Accountant of the Company in his statement before the officers of the Department, wherein he has stated that the appellant has not paid Service Tax because the appellant considered the services as "Export of Services" since the service recipient, namely, M/s. ESM Pte Singapore is abroad and the appellant has received the money in foreign convertible currency. For reasons best known to the authorities, these retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a nature that gives scope to more than one view, yet he has chosen to uphold the invocation of extended period on the ground that the appellant ought to have approached the Department seeking resolution. What the appellate authority has failed to appreciate is that evidently the appellant never harboured any doubt that its service was not an export of service, and it is apparently for that reason, that the appellant has declared the amounts received as towards export of service provided in its returns. Be that as it may, this Tribunal has in its decision in Smart Finance Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2014-TIOL-1555-CESTAT-DEL], 2015(37)STR 313 (Tri-Del) held as under: "5. The appellate authority in para 13 of the order observes that a doubt on the part of the appellant regarding its taxability to Service Tax is not relevant; in case the appellant has a doubt about taxability of the service "the appellant should have approached the department for clarification" but failed to do so and therefore the appellant had deliberately avoided payment of Service Tax, suppressed the fact of non-payment of Service Tax and therefore imposition of penalty under Section 78 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions to his benefit, it cannot be said that it was malafide or an act of wilful suppression and in such circumstances too neither can extended period be invoked nor any penalty be imposed. Decisions in International Merchandising Company, LLC v CST, New Delhi, 2022 (67) GSTL 129 (SC) Lanxess ABS Ltd v Commissioner, 2010 (259) ELT 551 (Tri) and Ispat Industries v CCE, Raigad, 2006 (199) ELT 509 (Tri-Mumbai) refers. 53. On a perusal of the ST-3 returns available as part of the Appeal records, we have found that in the ST-3 returns filed regularly, the Appellants have duly indicated therein, the amounts charged against export of service provided in the appropriate place provided for such declaration. The appellant has also indicated the consequent net taxable value as well as the service tax payable, pursuant to the said particulars indicated in the ST 3 returns. The present matter covers the dispute period from October 2014 to June 2017 whereas the SCN was issued only on 23.06.2020. The appellant had filed Service Tax returns for this period on 18.07.2015, 21.10.2015, 22.04.2016, 24.10.2016, 24.04.2017 and 14.08.2017 respectively as is evidenced by the ST-3 returns. As per Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of the appellant for the subsequent period under the prevailing GST Tax regime, it is seen that the Departmental Adjudicating Authority itself has dropped the proceedings rendering a finding in favour of the appellant on merits as evidenced by the Order in Original No.21/2025-DGGI (ADC) dated 17.01.2025 of the Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai and nothing has been brought to our notice to show that the order has not attained finality, Last, but not the least, having found in favour of the appellant on limitation, we are now forbidden from rendering a finding on merits as per the binding judicial precedents cited as under. 55. We find that the Honourable High Court of Allahabad, in Commr of Cus, C.Ex & S.Tax v. Monsanto Manufacturer Pvt Ltd, 2014 (35) STR 177 (All), has held as under: "20. Though in the appeal by the assessee several questions of law have been framed, the following question has been pressed at the hearing : "Whether the Tribunal having held that proceedings were barred by limitation and proceedings were liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation, the Tribunal committed an illegality in deciding the question o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms." (Emphasis supplied) 56. We find that the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v B.V. Jewels, 2004 (172) ELT 3 (SC), has observed that " If, in reality, the CEGAT found that the action taken by the departmental authorities was beyond the period of limitation, it could have disposed of the appeals before it only on that ground without examining the merits". This decision of the Apex Court in B.V. Jewels ibid has been followed in Commr of Service Tax, Mumbai IV v. Rochem Separations (I) P Ltd, 2019 (366) ELT 103 (Bom). It is also seen that the jurisdictional High Court in E.T.A General Pvt Ltd v Additional Commissioner of C.Ex, Chennai, 2016 (44) STR 409 (Mad) has held as under: "11. In Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v. M/s. Monsanto Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2014-TIOL-550-HC-ALL-ST, while declaring the demand as beyond the period of one year, the Tribunal, entered into the merits of the appeal filed by the assessee and passed an adverse order. Before the Allahabad High Court, one of the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee, was when the Tribunal having held that proceedings were barred by limitati....