2013 (12) TMI 1323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. ORDER The adjudicating authority has demanded service tax and education cess totalling to Rs. 73,77,685/- from the appellant under the Head Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for the period from December 2005 to March 2007 in adjudication of a show-cause notice which was issued in January 2011 invoking the extended period of limitation. It has also imposed penalties on the appellant. The p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stand that the noticee must pay service tax under 'BAS'. It is the submission of the learned counsel that these circumstances would bring out the confusion which prevailed in the department as regards the tax liability of the appellant for the period of dispute. In such circumstances, the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked by the department. We have heard the learned Additi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as the appropriate service rendered by the appellant. The fact that they have been paying service tax under this category ever since it became a taxable service under this category shows that the appellant did not want to hide anything from the department or to evade tax. Prima facie, the extended period of limitation was invoked without any basis. 3. The appellant has also claimed legitimate su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X