9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp;Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is right in dropping the demand that SCN issued in this case and remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority on the ground that it is barred by limitation even though it is held that the services rendered by the respondent is Management Consultant Services? [b] Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that there is bona fide intention of the respondent for not paying the duty and the respondent has not evaded payment of duty?" 2. The respondent assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Casting and Casting articles falling under Chapter Heading No. 84/73 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A show cause notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was liable to be registered under the category of "Management Consultancy Services". 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, and partly succeeded. Though on merits the Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee fell under the category of "Management Consultant" and not under the category of "Scientific or Technical Consultancy", on the question regarding invocation of the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal insofar as it has held that in the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts claim that the show cause notice was hit by limitation and hence, the demand was unsustainable. Despite such specific contentions having been raised by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the same in his order. 7. The Tribunal in the impugned order has, while dealing with the contention of the assessee that as the demand of tax for the period 16-10-1998 to December 2001 had been raised on 7-12-2002, the same was barred by limitation for the major period, recorded the following findings : "[8] However, we find force in the appellant's contention that the demand of tax for the period 16-10-98 to December, 2001 having been raised on 7-11-2002, was barred by limitation for the major period. The income rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that at the relevant time a lot of confusion was prevailing in respect thereto. As to whether there is any suppression or mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty is a question of fact and the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record has found as a matter of fact that there was no suppression or misstatement. Moreover, in the light of the fact that there was confusion prevailing in respect of the controversy in issue at the relevant time, the assessee was entitled to entertain a view that the services rendered by it did not fall within the ambit of management consultancy services. On behalf of the revenue nothing has been pointed out to the contrary to dislodge the findings recorded by the Tribunal so as to persuad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
