2009 (8) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the partners of appellant firm. In this case Tri.-(Chennai) held that no suppression arises, thus the demand hit by time-bar. Revision order set aside. - ST/76-77 and 139/2007, ST/110-111/08 and ST/354/09 - 1079-1084/2009 - Dated:- 24-8-2009 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Shri M.N. Bharathi and Ms. Nisha Bineesh, Advocates, for the Appellant. Sh. V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mi Travels and confirming one-third of the demand each on the three partners of the firm and imposing penalties on all three persons under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. This adjudication order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal No. 25/2007 dated 2-4-2007 against which Appeal Nos. ST/76, 77 and 139/2007 have been filed by S/Shri G. Covindaraj, N. Muruganantham and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst the partners vide Order-in-Appeal No. 25/2007 dated 2-4-2007 and allow Appeal Nos.ST/76, 77 and 139/2007. 4. Coming to Order-in-Revision No. 5/2008, the contention of M/s. Lakshmi Travels that the demand is barred by limitation for the reason that notice dated October, 2005 covers the periods from 2000-01 to 2003-04 (up to October, 2003) which notice is beyond the statutory period of limi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X