TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri C. Saravanan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order] - This is an appeal filed by Shri M. Moorthy, Chartered Accountant, Tiruppur. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the demand of Rs. 52,410/- being the service tax due on the services rendered by the appellant as a chartered accountant during the period 16-10-98 to 27-8-04, applicable interest, penalties of Rs. 1,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) and Rs. 52,410/- each under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act. The facts of the case are that the appellants had rendered taxable service as a "practising chartered accountant" since 6-10-98 but had not registered himself as an assessee wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the Show Cause Notice was issued on 4-3-05 proposing to recover the tax due from 16-10-98. The appellant was not a party to the writ petition filed by the Association of Chartered Accountants. He had not been aware of the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition on 30-4-01. He continued to bona fidely believe that service tax was not leviable on services rendered by the chartered accountants as claimed by the association in the writ petition. The department was not barred by any order of the High Court from issuing the demand notice earlier. The demand for the period beyond the normal period was barred by limitation. The appellant relied on the following case law on the plea of limitation. (a) Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. v. CCE, B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on chartered accountant's service was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 30-4-01, the appellant claims that he had continued to believe that the levy was not lawful. He had been away from Tiruppur and was not aware of the dismissal of the writ petition. He claims that not applying for registration with the department initially was on account of the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. The appellant has relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in National Steels v. CCE, Delhi reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 522 (Tribunal) = 2006-TIOL-92-CESTAT-Del. and JSL Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 316, in support of the plea of limitation. I find that in the cited decisions the Tribunal had held that invoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sociation of Chartered Accountants challenging levy of a new tax which also made a dent in his income. I find that the argument that he had not started paying service tax since he continued to believe that the impost was not lawful as claimed in the failed writ is too naive to be accepted. However, the demand has to be re quantified in terms of the new Section 73 with reference to the date of issue of show cause notice as the department was aware of the tax liability when it had initiated investigation into the matter, it has to be examined if larger period could be validly invoked to raise the demand in view of the case law National Steels v. CCE, Delhi [2006 (205) E.L.T. 522 (Tribunal) = 2006-TIOL-92-CESTAT-Del.] and JSL Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
