TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x for the period from 01.01.2000 to 30.09.2002. In respect of service tax for the above period, a show cause notice was issued on 31.03.2003 and the order in original was passed by the Assessing Authority on 30.12.2004 confirming the demand of Rs. 56,33,000/- and imposing penalty of equal amount as well as Rs. 500/- for not seeking registration under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The order in original stated that the respondent provided services in the nature of consulting engineer. The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed on 19.03.2005 holding that the nature of service provided by the respondent is not that of consulting engineer but that of management consultant. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of limitation was correctly invoked by Adjudicating Authority?" Sri Shashi Matthews at the very outset submits that the above question is not a question of law; rather of fact and as such, is beyond the scope of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon certain authorities as well. In Kushal Fertilisers v. CCE, Meerut, 2009 (238) ELT 21 (SC), it has been laid down that suppression of facts is essentially a question of fact and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. In CCE & C, Mumbai v. Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 188, relying upon the earlier decision, the Hon'ble The Supreme Court held that question whether there is suppression of facts is a ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the learned counsel for the appellant that the question of law as formulated by this Court earlier is a question of fact and need not be considered and answered by this Court. In these circumstances, we proceed to answer the question as formulated. Section 73 of the Act as it stood on the relevant time was as under: "73. Value of taxable services escaping assessment (1) If - (a) the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or, as the case may be, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee, to make a return under section 70 for any prescribed period to disclose wholly or truly all material facts required for verification of the assessment under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as reason to believe that on account of any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to file return u/s 70 of the Act, the value of taxable service has escaped assessment, he may at any time within five years of the relevant date serve notice on the assessee chargeable with the service tax which has escaped assessment as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. A simple reading of the aforesaid provision shorn of all other conditions therein which are not relevant, would establish that the period of limitation for issuing notice to show cause why service tax should be not paid or realised is dependant upon the omission or failure on the part of the assessee in filing the return u/s 70 of the Act is five years fro....