Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1187 - HC - Service TaxExtended period of Limitation - Section 73(1) of Finance Act - Whether the CESTAT has committed an error of law in deciding the issue of limitation, especially on account of strong documentary evidence provided by the Department? Held that:- The period covered by the SCN was from January 1, 2010 to March 19, 2010. The SCN was dated 31.03.2013. Similarly, for demand pertaining to 'development and supply of content service' the period involved was 2007-08 to 2010-11 and the SCN was issued after eighteen months limitation period invoking the extended period of limitation. The reason given for invoking the extended period was that above facts came to the notice of the Department only during scrutiny of records e.g. ledger, balance sheet, invoices, cenvat credit accounts etc., maintained by the respondent and such details were not disclosed to the department at any stage in any report or returns and thus, the respondent had suppressed the facts and the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was applicable to the instant case. SCN itself shows that every details was maintained by the respondent in their usual course of years. They had not suppressed or manipulated any fact to evade the payment of service tax or to avail Cenvat credit. When the ingredients of proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act were not present, the invocation of extended period of limitation was not correct to issue SCN. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|