2011 (9) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rata basis - Also note that there was audit on 2004 and a lot of correspondence was exchanged between the appellant and the Revenue, in spite of that, Show Cause Notice was issued only on 20.7.2006 - Thus, fully agree with the finding of the authorities that the demand is barred by limitation - Accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected on the above ground itself.
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Mathew John, JJ. Appeared for Appellant : Shri Amrish Jain, SDR Per Archana Wadhwa : Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Amrish Jain, ld. SDR for Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent. 3. As per the facts on record the respondents are en .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... can be attributed to the assessee. He has further held that non-disclosure of value received before 1.7.2003 against coaching services was due to appellant s bonafide interpretation of the act/rules and cannot be considered as suppression. As such, by relying upon various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court as also on the Board s Circular No. 5/92-CX.4 dated 13.10.92 and [1993 (63) ELT T-7], he has held that mere non-declaration is not sufficient for invoking larger period but a positive mis-declaration is necessary. Similarly, he has referred to another circular of the Board No. 268/102/96-CX dated 14.11.96 clarifying that specific ground for extending period of demand must be given as laid down by the Hon ble Apex court in the case of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the point of limitation. Revenue has again reiterated their stand that inasmuch as there was no return filed by the appellant, the longer period is available. However, we note in the same very judgement of P.T. Education & Training Service Ltd. relied upon by the ld. DR, it stands observed however, we agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate that the case relates to interpretation of law. Therefore, penalty is not warranted. Accordingly, penalties are set aside. By applying the above findings of the dispute being related to interpretation of law, we are of the view that the longer period cannot be invoked on the same very ground. Admittedly, the period involved in the present appeal is the initial period of introduction of coachi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X