9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de belief In such the circumstances, mis-statement or suppression of facts, if any, cannot said to be wilful. - Demand beyond normal period of limitation dropped. - Penalty set aside. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such services. 5. However, we note that period involved in the present appeal is from July, 2003 to September, 2005 and show cause notice was raised in April, 2006. As such, a major part of the demand stands raised by invoking the extending period of limitation. It is seen that the said issue was the subject matter of consideration by the Government as also by the Tribunal. Government in its Circular F. No. 233/2/2003-CX-4 dated 7-4-2004 addressed to the Punjab Colour Lab Association had clarified that service provider was entitled to claim exemption in respect of inputs, material consumed/sold to the service recipient. Apart from the above clarification, the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shilpa Colour Lab reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since the earlier decisions of the Tribunal were in favour of the assessee, it has to be held that there was bona fide doubt about the inclusion of the cost of material in the cost of services. If that be so, no mala fide can be attributable to the appellant so as to invoke the extended period of limitation. 7. Inasmuch as the major period involved under the present appeal is beyond the normal period of limitation, we are of the view that the demand for that purpose is hit by time bar. Accordingly, the appellant is liable to pay service tax for the period which falls within the period of limitation. The authorities below are directed to requantify the demand accordingly. 8. As regards penalty, having held that there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
