9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tands issued on 7.2.2007 for the period 1.7.03 to 31.8.04, thus invoking the longer period of limitation to be decided in favour of the assesses and as such has held the demand to be barred by limitation -BRIJ MOTORS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR [2011 (11) TMI 410 (Tri) ] - as demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant has provided services falling under the category of Business Auxiliary services. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant fairly concedes that the issue stands decided against them by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Roshan Motors Ltd. vs. Commissioner reported as [2009 (13) STR 667(Tri)] . However, he assails the demand of limitation. 4. We find that show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason. So we are of the view that the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation. In such a situation penalties are not imposable either. The period involved in this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
