Case Law Details
CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Shri Ram Associates
V/s.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Jaipur
FINAL ORDER NO. ST/A/325/of 2012-CUS
STAY ORDER NO. ST/S/428/of 2012-CUS
APPLICATION NO. ST/stay/2637 OF 2011
APPEAL NO. ST/1253 OF 2011
APRIL 11, 2012
ORDER
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 53,598/- and penalties imposed under various sections, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue stands covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal.
2. After hearing both sides, we find that Service Tax stands confirmed against the appellant on the ground that by undertaking the activity of marketing of loan schemes from various banks, financial institution, the appellant has provided services falling under the category of Business Auxiliary services.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant fairly concedes that the issue stands decided against them by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Roshan Motors Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 18 STT 418 (New Delhi – CESTAT). However, he assails the demand on limitation.
4. We find that show cause notice stands issued on 7-2-2007 for the period 1-7-2003 to 31-8-2004, thus invoking the longer period of limitation. Tribunal in the case of Brij Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. ST/601/2011, dated 22-11-2011] as [2012 (25) STR 489 (Tri – Delhi)] has taken note of the fact that the were decisions of the Tribunal holding in favour of the assessees and as such has held the demand to be barred by limitation. For better appreciation, we reproduce para 14 of the said judgment
“14. The period involved in this appeal is 20-10-2004 to 18-12-2007. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 21-2-2008. As can be seen from the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial forums in different ways as may be seen from the decisions quoted by the Appellants. The Higher Courts have been taking the view that in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason. So we are of the view that the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation. In such a situation penalties are not imposable either. The period involved in this appeal is 20-10-2004 to 18-12-2007. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 21-2-2008. As can be seen from the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial forums in different ways as may be seen from the decisions quoted by the Appellants. The Higher Courts have been taking the view that in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason: So we are of the view that the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation. In such a situation penalties are not imposable either. “
5. By following the ratio of the above decision, we hold the demand in the present case also is barred by limitation, the same is accordingly, set aside along with setting aside of penalties. The impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
