Case Law Details

Case Name : CCE, Tirunelveli Vs M/s Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ST/621/2009
Date of Judgement/Order : 31/12/2010
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (608) CESTAT Mumbai (126)

I find that this is a case where the impugned period is from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The respondent assessees have taken service tax registration only on 06.12.05 and the very first return has been filed by them on 04.12.06, after a long delay. I also find that in para 2 (iv), there is an allegation of suppression of value of taxable service in the show cause notice dated 12.03.07.

In view of the above, the demand cannot be held to be time barred. As the lower appellate authority has not gone into the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to him for passing a fresh order on merits, after hearing both sides. Shri R.J. Pillai, Ld. Consultant states that they have paid service tax amount after taking into account 75% abatement available to them but the authorities below have not gone into the question of abatement at all. The respondents shall be free to raise the question of proper quantification of service tax during the denovo proceedings before the lower appellate authority to whom the case is being remanded.

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

ST/621/2009

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.306/2009 Dated: 18.9.2009
Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal), Madurai

Date of Decision: 31.12.2010

CCE, TIRUNELVELI

Vs

M/s GANAPATHY MILLS CO. LTD.

Service Tax – Demand of service tax set aside by the lower authority on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of the case – Since there is an allegation in the show cause notice about suppression, the demand cannot be held to be time barred as the first return has been filed after a long delay – Matter remanded for passing fresh orders on merits.

FINAL ORDER NO.12/2011

Heard both sides.

2. The respondents filed appeal against confirmation of service tax demand against them for the period 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The lower appellate authority has not gone into the merits of the case but has held that the demand is time barred since the Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.03.07. He also states that the Order-in-Original does not record anything which amounts to suppression on the part of the respondents. The Ld. Consultant Shri R.J Pillai, appearing for the respondents also states that there is no allegation of suppression in the show cause notice.

3. Heard the Ld. SDR, who supports the appeal of the department and reiterates the grounds of appeal taken therein.

4. I find that this is a case where the impugned period is from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The respondent assessees have taken service tax registration only on 06.12.05 and the very first return has been filed by them on 04.12.06, after a long delay. I also find that in para 2 (iv), there is an allegation of suppression of value of taxable service in the show cause notice dated 12.03.07.

5. In view of the above, the demand cannot be held to be time barred. As the lower appellate authority has not gone into the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to him for passing a fresh order on merits, after hearing both sides. Shri R.J. Pillai, Ld. Consultant states that they have paid service tax amount after taking into account 75% abatement available to them but the authorities below have not gone into the question of abatement at all. The respondents shall be free to raise the question of proper quantification of service tax during the denovo proceedings before the lower appellate authority to whom the case is being remanded.

6. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

More Under Service Tax

Posted Under

Category : Service Tax (3288)
Type : Judiciary (10123)
Tags : Cestat judgments (797)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *