M/S Alfa Auto Industries (P) Ltd vs Cce, Ludhiana
- CitationService Tax Appeal No. 296 of 2009
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The extended period of limitation for demanding service tax is invocable where the assessee, though registered for another category of taxable service, received consideration for a taxable service (maintenance or repair service under Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, 1994) and neither disclosed that receipt nor reflected it in its service tax returns, such non-disclosure amounting to suppression of facts; a plea of unawareness of liability is not accepted where the definition of the service leaves little scope for such inference and the assessee was already familiar with service tax provisions through its existing registration.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Service Tax Appeal No. 296 of 2009
(Arising out of order in appeal No. 19/CE/LDH/2009 dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh).
M/s Alfa Auto Industries (P) Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Ludhiana Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellant
Shri Mani Ram Sharma, DR for the Respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 51388/ 2015
Per: R. K. Singh:
Appeal has been filed against order in appeal No. 19/CE/LDH/2009 dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh in terms of which service tax demand of Rs. 1,08,655/- alongwith interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 was upheld.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
During the scrutiny of records of the appellants it was observed that during the period 2005-06 they received Rs. 11,73,900/- on account of repair of old machines which was covered under the category of maintenance and repair service. They never disclosed this fact and never reflected it in their service tax returns. While the primary adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,19,738/- invoking the extended period, the appellant authority allowed the cum tax benefit and reduced the demand to Rs.1,08,655/-.
3. In the grounds of appeal the appellants have contended that there was no suppression on their part. They were duly registered and submitted their returns and they were not aware that there was service tax liability on such repair work.
4. No one appeared at the time of personal hearing and therefore the appeal is being disposed of on merit on the basis of evidence on record.
5. It is seen that the appellate authority duly extended the cum-tax benefit. The repair work done by the appellant is clearly covered under the maintenance or repair service as defined during the relevant period in Section 65(64) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellants have not given any basis as to how they inferred that they were not covered under Maintenance or Repair Service when its definition in Section 65(64)) ibid hardly leaves any scope for such inference on the part of the appellants. The appellants were registered for GTA services under Section 69 of Finance Act, 1994 but did not show the figures relating to the impugned service in their ST-3 returns nor registered under Maintenance or Repair Service. Having already taken registration under GTA Service, they were familiar with the Service Tax provisions. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that extended period is invocable in this case.
6. In the light of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R. K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
Pant
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free