Reciprocal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Allahabad)
Held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of deliberate suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty
Facts-
The appellant contended that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act could not have been invoked. The appellant also stated that the demand of service tax for the period which is within the normal period of 18 months from the relevant date may be confirmed.
Conclusion-
It was absolutely necessary for the adjudicating authority to form an opinion that the appellant had deliberately suppressed material information with an intention to evade payment of service tax. Unless the adjudicating authority had come to a conclusion that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked in the show cause notice, it could not have confirmed the demand for any period beyond the normal period of limitation.
Held that the suppression of facts should be deliberate and in taxation laws it can have only one meaning, namely that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT ALLAHABAD ORDER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 24 February, 2015 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. The demand of service tax has been confirmed by invoking the proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act 19941 with interest and penalty.
2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it has dealt with three services, namely ‘works contract services’, ‘work of demolishing’ and ‘inadmissible CENVAT credit’. The details of these three services are as follows:
