9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the appellant by holding that there was reasonable cause to entertain the belief that the service was non-taxable, by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. If there was reasonable cause for entertaining belief that the service provided by the appellant does not amount to taxable service, as held by the Commissioner, the same ground would be available to the appellant for pleading the limitation aspect. As such, at this prima facie stage, we are of the view that the appellant is not required to deposit any amount of duty as condition of hearing of their appeal. - Following decision of Ashoka Infraways (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik [2011 (5) TMI 152 - CESTAT, Mumbai] - Stay granted. - ST/19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken the maintenance and repair of the road. It is the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that such maintenance and repair of the road was being done by the appellant as statutory obligation. Further drawing our attention to the definition of the maintenance and repair service, he submitted that the same is required to be done under a contract. Inasmuch in the present case, there was no contract, the appellant cannot be held to be providing any service under the said category. He further clarified that it is corporate body entrusted with constitutional liability to maintain and repair road and for the said purpose the budgetary grant is given to the appellant, who further engaged the contractor to do job. 4. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal where under similar facts and circumstances, unconditional stays were granted. One such reference is to the Tribunal s Order No. S/558-559/CSTB/C-I, dated 5-5-2011. 8. We also find force in the contention of the appellant that the demand being time-barred. The show cause notice for the period from 16-5-2005 to 31-3-2008 was issued on 10-11-2008 and as such the major part of the demand is beyond normal period of limitation. It is seen that the Commissioner, while confirming the demand, has not imposed any penalty on the appellant by holding that there was reasonable cause to entertain the belief that the service was non-taxable, by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. If there was reasonable cause for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
