9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contract service', 'maintenance or repair service' and 'commercial construction service'. 2. An investigation was initiated by the Officers of DGCEI against the Appellant on the ground that in spite of collecting service charges / Service Tax from the clients, the Appellant has not paid appropriate Service Tax and not filed S.T.-3 Returns properly. Upon completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 14.10.2014 was issued to the Appellant inter alia demanding Service Tax of Rs.1,32,29,951/- (including cesses) for the Financial Years 2009-10 to 2013-14. 3. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Haldia Commissionerate vide impugned Order-in-Original No. 10/Commissioner/ST/Hald ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and reflected the same in their statutory books of accounts. 4.2. The appellant further submits that the service tax liabilities for each financial years were reflected in schedule 11 under the head of current liabilities of the respective Balance sheets during the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and for the rest of the impugned period i.e., for 2011-12 to 2013-14, the liabilities were reflected in note 7 under the head statutory liabilities. Further, the amount withheld as "retention money" was reflected in note 'g' under the head Security deposits & EMD of the respecting Balance sheets. The unpaid bill amounts were reflected in the sub-head Sundry debtors/Trade receivables of the head "current assets" of the respective Balance sheets of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 7. We observe that the Appellant has not contested the demand of Service Tax on merits. 8. The Appellant has primarily contested the issue on the ground of limitation. The plea of the Appellant is that there was no suppression of facts with intention to evade the tax established in this case and hence extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to demand service tax. The Appellant submitted that they have raised the bills to their clients along with service tax. In most of the cases, the client retained part of the bill amount as 'retention money' and released the money after a long period. In certain cases, the entire bill amount was also retained. However, they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the appellant by issuance of a letter dt. 13.03.2014. However, it is on record that the appellant has filed the ST-3 returns for the period July to September 2012-13 and October to March 2012-13 on 10.01.2014, which is much before the receipt of the aforesaid letter. In the return for July to September ibid, service tax payable amount and paid amount were shown. Similarly, for October to March return also the appellant has indicated the service tax amounts payable and paid. These declarations clearly establish that prior to initiation of the investigation by the officers of DGCEI, service tax dues for the periods July 2012 to March 2013, April to Sept. 2014 and Oct. 2014 to March 2015 were declared by the appellant in the ST-3 retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, we hold that demand is also barred by limitation." 10.1. A similar view was taken by the Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v Commissioner of C.Ex., Allahabad [2003 (161) E.L.T. 346 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein it was held that: "6. .... .... Further, the finding of suppression of facts against the assessee is wholly unfair, apart from being incorrect. Balance Sheets of companies is a publicly available document. Therefore, the allegation that data stated in the Balance Sheet was suppressed from Central Excise authorities is not a viable allegation. The demand has to fail on the ground of limitation itself." 10.2. In view of the above discussion and by relying upon the decisions cited supra, we hold that there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -
(i) We set aside the demand confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation. For the same reason, we hold that no penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is imposable on the appellant.
(ii) The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of calculating the liability, if any, for the normal period of limitation and verification of the payments made by the appellant. The demand liability, if any, arising during the normal period, may be adjusted against the payments made by the appellant as detailed in paragraph 11.1. supra, subject to verification.
13. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 24.10.2024) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
