CESTAT | Mere non-disclosure of particulars cannot be concluded as willful suppression in order to invoke extended period

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): This appeal was filed before Sulekha Beevi, J. and Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical).                                                                    

Facts of the case were that appellants were manufacturers of Camshaft Assembly Segments for Diesel Locomotives and were holding service tax registration. During verification of records of the appellant, it was found that they were providing work of reconditioning to Railways from June 2005 on agreements entered with railways.

The definition of Maintenance or Repair Service was amended according to which appellant was liable to pay service tax under the category of Maintenance or Repair Service. They failed to discharge the service tax on the services and appellant wrongly availed abatement which he was not eligible to avail. Show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period proposing to demand service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. The demand under Maintenance and Repair Services along with interest and imposed penalty was confirmed and was upheld by the Commissioner. Hence, this appeal was filed.

Ms S. Sridevi on behalf of appellant contended that they have provided reclamation and reconditioning of Camshaft Assembly Segments to the Railways based on work orders issued earlier. But as per the Railways, the same were not taxable since done before the specified date due to which appellant did not pay service tax for the taxable values received for the contract. For the period post the specified date, they paid service tax after availing the benefit of abatement. The same was denied by the department stating that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition of the notification barring the availment of CENVAT credit. Appellant further contended that mere non-disclosure of particulars cannot be concluded as willful suppression in order to invoke the extended period.

It was submitted by Shri B. Balamurugan that appellant had not discharged the service tax although they had provided services to the Railways. Further, they had availed the benefit after availing credit on inputs and input services.

Tribunal on finding no ingredients in the present case for invocation of the extended period set aside this impugned order. [Ceeyes Metal Reclamation (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner (GST), 2019 SCC OnLine CESTAT 31, Order dated 08-03-2019]

Join the discussion

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.