S.Rajendran and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

S.Rajendran and Others vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Oct 05, 2009

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/942998

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/942998
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Decided On: Oct 05, 2009
Case Number: Appeal Nos.S/139 of 2008, S/140 of 2008, S/180 of 2008, S/189 of 2008
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.Rajendran and Others

Advocate Shri S.Murugappan, Advocate. Shri T.H.Rao, SDR

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

Excerpt

the above appeals arising out of separate impugned orders involve a common issue and hence are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. in all cases, demands of service tax along with interest have been confirmed on the ground that assessees herein were providing rent-a-cab operator service. penalties have also been imposed upon them. 3. i have heard both sides. i find force in the submission of the appellants that the demands are barred by limitation for the reason that there is no material on record to establish suppression on the part of the assessees who, although had not got themselves registered with service tax authorities and not paid the taxes, have stated that they did so out of ignorance which stand has not been controverted or rebutted by the revenue. therefore, although demands are sustainable on merits in the light of the decision of the hon ble madras high court in secretary, federation of bus operators vs union of india 2001 (134) elt 618 (mad.), demands are not sustainable on the ground that they are time-barred. i, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals on the ground of limitation.

Full Judgment

The above appeals arising out of separate impugned orders involve a common issue and hence are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. In all cases, demands of service tax along with interest have been confirmed on the ground that assessees herein were providing rent-a-cab operator service. Penalties have also been imposed upon them.

3. I have heard both sides. I find force in the submission of the appellants that the demands are barred by limitation for the reason that there is no material on record to establish suppression on the part of the assessees who, although had not got themselves registered with service tax authorities and not paid the taxes, have stated that they did so out of ignorance which stand has not been controverted or rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, although demands are sustainable on merits in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators Vs Union of India 2001 (134) ELT 618 (Mad.), demands are not sustainable on the ground that they are time-barred.

I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals on the ground of limitation.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties S.Rajendran and Others vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President