Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sapphire Security And ... vs Cce, Madurai on 26 September, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
ST/4/2002
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 83/2002 MDU (GVN) dated 30.04.2002, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy).
For approval and signature
Honble Shri P.K. DAS, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
_______________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the : No
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair : Seen
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Departmental Authorities? ______________________________________________________
M/s. Sapphire Security and Intelligence
Regiment Pvt.Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Madurai : Respondent
Appearance None for the appellant Shri. K.P. Muralidaran, Supdt., for the respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. DAS, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member Date of Hearing : 26.09.2014 Date of Decision: 26.09.2014 FINAL ORDER No. 40640 / 2014 Per: P.K. Das, The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,12,470/- for the period from 16.10.98 to 31.08.2000, under the category of Security Agency Service. He has also demanded interest and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order in so are as the penalty was set aside. The Tribunal by Final Order No. 255/09 dated 12.03.09, held that the demand of tax beyond the normal period of limitation was not sustainable. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order in so far as demand of service tax barred by limitation and allowed the appeal. The Revenue challenged the Tribunals order before the Honble High Court of Madras in CMA (MD) No. 692/09. By decision/judgment dated 09.12.2013, the Honble High Court of Madras directed the Tribunal to consider the period of limitation with regard to last period as mentioned in the Annexure No.II and pass suitable order on merits. The relevant portion of the decision of the Honble High Court of Madras is reproduced below:-
6. In fact, this Court has seen the entire final order passed in Final Order No. 255/09 dated 12.03.09, wherein it has been specifically held that the entire claim of the appellant is barred by limitation. Of Course, it is true that the appellant has put up its claim from October 1998 to August 2000. Since, period of limitation is six months, rejection of the entire claim concluded by the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous and therefore, the order passed by the appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Appellate Tribunal for considering the last portion which has been mentioned in Annexure-II, started from April 2000 to August 2000. Since the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Appellate Tribunal, the substantial questions of law settled in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal need not be decided.
7. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without cost and the order passed in Final Order No. 255/09 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider period of limitation with regard to the last period mentioned in Annexure No.II and pass suitable order on merits.
2. None appears on behalf of the appellants. There is no application for adjournment. It is seen from the record that the matter was adjourned on earlier occasions and nobody turned up on behalf of the appellants.
3. After hearing the Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the period of limitation would be decided after examination of the facts in detail. Hence, it is appropriate that the adjudicating authority should examine the period of limitation in detail, after considering the submissions of the appellant.
4. In view of the above, we direct the adjudicating authority to examine the period of limitation, as per the order of the Honble High Court of Madras, in accordance with law. Needless to say, that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the appellants, before taking any decision. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (P.K. DAS)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BB
1