fiogf49gjkf0d
There cannot be said to be any suppression after the activity comes to the knowledge of the department. Hence, demand of service tax under extended period of limitation is held invalid to the extent it related to the period after statements of appellant company’s officials were recorded.
Facts:
The assessee was manufacturing on job-work basis for his principal and also collected a fixed amount as service charges towards certain services provided to the principal. The department was of the view that these expenses incurred for providing the services were in the nature of overheads essential for manufacturing activity and therefore were required to be reckoned while the assessable value of the finished goods was calculated for payment of duty. In August 1996, the department recorded statement from the officials of the assessee-company. A show cause notice was issued in October 1998 for the period 1995-96 to November 1997. The Tribunal upheld the intention of evasion for the receipt of service charges from their principal as the activities of the assessee came to light subsequent to an investigation by the department. However, it also held that, as the department was aware of the activities of the assessee after recording the statement, demand under extended period is valid only to the extent it pertains to the period prior to August 1996. Before the High Court, assessee contended that if there is no suppression post August, 1996, no extended period could be invoked post August, 1996 and, therefore, the same analogy will have to be applied for the period prior to August, 1996 as well.
Held:
The High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal on the ground that, findings recorded by the Tribunal in so far as the period prior to August, 1996 and post August, 1996 stems from strong judicial reasoning and there is no error on record warranting interference with the well considered finding of the Tribunal.
