Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Noble Detective & Security Service ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 29 August, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.ST/218/2009 [Arising out of OIA-58/2009/STC/LMR/COMMR-A-/AHD, dt.05/03/2009, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad] M/s Noble Detective & Security Service Pvt. Ltd Appellant Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: None For Respondent: Shri Sameer Chitkara, A.R. (Addl. Commissioner) For approval and signature:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial)
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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:29.08.2016 Order No.A/10776/2016, dt.29.08.2016 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra None present for the Appellant. Heard the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue.
2. This is an appeal filed against OIA No. 58/2009/STC/LMR/ COMMR-A-/AHD, dt.05/03/2009, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants during the period 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was engaged in providing the taxable services under the category of Security Agency Services for which they were registered with the Central Excise department. A demand notice was issued to them on 30.03.2006 for recovery of Service Tax allegedly short paid for the period 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 as the gross taxable value shown in the ST-3 returns did not match with the figures reflected in the respective balance sheets. On adjudication, the demand of Rs.24,59,686/- was confirmed with equivalent penalty and also penalties under other provisions of Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant had filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected their appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, they preferred the second appeal before this Tribunal and after hearing both the sides, this Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.8 lakhs within eight weeks and to report compliance to the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant deposited Rs.8 lakhs before the Commissioner (Appeals) and participated in the de-novo proceeding.
4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with an observation that the Show Cause Notice cannot be issued beyond 5 years and the period prior to October 2000 is thus barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant is in appeal before this forum.
5. The grievance of the Appellant as set out in their grounds of appeal is that even though they have specifically pleaded that the demand is totally barred by limitation for the entire period from 1999 to 2004 , the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered their submission partly and held that the demand issued prior to October 2000 being period more than 5 years, hence barred by limitation, but failed to appreciate the fact that in the absence of any suppression of facts, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case even for the period after October 2000.
6. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue has fairly accepts that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded any findings as to how the extended period of limitation could be applied in the present case and he has no objection in remanding the case to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
7. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the case needs to be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to record reasons as to how the extended period of limitation would be applicable to the demand for the period after October 2000. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to address all the issues including applicability of extended period of limitation. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the appellant. All issues are kept open. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Cbb 4