2024 (12) TMI 1024 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - demand in the present case is entirely barred by limitation as the demand pertains to the period 01.07.2004 to 31.03.2006 whereas the SCN has been issued on 13.10.2009 - liability to pay service tax on Commission is received by the appellant for sale of the product - HELD THAT - In identical matters this Tribunal has consistently held that extended period of limitation is not applicable to distributor/Commission agent of M/s Amway India Enterprises. This issue is no more res integra and has been held in the decisions M/S AB NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHANDIGARH-I 2023 (12) TMI 180 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH and MR. CHARANJEET SINGH KHANUJA AND OTHERS VERSUS CST INDORE/LUCKNOW/JAIPUR/LUDHIANA AND OTHERS 2015 (6) TMI 585 - CESTAT NEW DELHI relied upon by the appellant. It is found that the Department has not been able to prove the ingredients which are necessary to invoke the extended period of limitation; therefore the impugned demand is barred by limitation and the same is set aside on limitation alone without going into the merits of the case. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The appeal was against a service tax demand of Rs. 24,361 for the period 01.07.2004 to 31.03.2006. The Tribunal found the demand to be barred by limitation and set it aside without delving into the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed on limitation grounds alone.