Judgements

Vijaya Advertisers vs Commissioner Of Customs And C. Ex. on 26 September, 2006

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Bangalore
Vijaya Advertisers vs Commissioner Of Customs And C. Ex. on 26 September, 2006
Bench: S Peeran, J T T.K.


ORDER

S.L. Peeran, Member (J)

1. Revenue has moved this ROM Applications against the Final Orders No. 37/2006 dated 6-1-2006 [2006 (4) S.T.R. 232 (Tri. – Bang.)] and No. 2249/2005 dated 23-12-2005 2006 (2) S.T.R. 102 (Tribunal). The issue being common and the grounds in both the ROMs being common, they are taken up together for disposal. In both these matters, the Tribunal by the Final Orders have set aside the demands raised in the impugned order for larger period on the ground that the provisions of larger period has not been invoked in show cause notice and the demands should be restricted to the period within limitations. The Revenue contend in these ROMs that in the show cause notice, it had been clearly mentioned that the appellants did not file STR returns periodically with the Department and as they had not disclosed material facts required for assessment with a mala fide intention to evade payment of service tax. It is stated that this submission in show cause notice is sufficient to save the limitation.

2. The learned JDR submits that the show cause notice had clearly invoked the relevant Sections and therefore, larger period was invokable.

3. The learned Counsel submits that mere quoting Sections is not sufficient but Revenue should bring out all the ingredients required for invoking larger period. It has to be shown that the appellants had intentionally evaded payment of duty in the matter.

4. The learned JDR in counter points out to Section 73A & B of the Finance Act which lays down that failure to file return is sufficient to indicate demands for 5 years. He points out that the ingredients as in the Central Excise Act or in the Customs Act are not the criteria for invoking larger period in so far as the Service Tax is concerned.

5. On a careful consideration, we notice on this point raised by the Revenue is required to be reconsidered, therefore, both the above mentioned Final Orders are recalled. The appeals are required to be reheard. ROMs are allowed and both these appeals to come up for hearing on 15-11-2006.

(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)