2009 (1) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. ORDER Service tax of Rs. 76,16,698/- stands confirmed against the appellant, who is registered under the category of telephone service provider, on the ground that the excess service tax paid in one month cannot be adjusted against the liability of subsequent month in as much the conditions of Rule 6(3) are not satisfied. The demand stands confirmed for the period April, 2001 to Ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o March, 97 and in March, 2003 for April, 97 to December, 2001. As such, it is seen that they were beyond the normal period of limitation and in one case, show cause notice has been issued after a period of five years. M/s. BSNL, being a PSU of Govt. of India, cannot be attributed with, any mala fide intention to evade payment of duty. As such, by holding the demand to be barred by limitation, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X