9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of limitation. Further, the original adjudicating authority having granted the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act to the appellant, has held that there was no suppression on the part of the assessee. If there is no suppression, I fail to understand as to how the longer period of limitation would get invoked. - Demand barred by limitation period - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er holding the demand of duty along with imposition of penalties under section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. However, as regards the imposition of penalty under section 78, he observed that since it is a new tax, so he takes a lenient view and extends the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of imposition of penalties under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. As such, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s invoked and no penalty is imposed under section 78, longer period of limitation would not be available. I refer to recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of J P Singhal and Co. vs. CCE, Jaipur II vide Final Order No. 58360/ 2013 dated 26.11.2013. For better appreciation para 3 of the said decision is reproduced as under:- 3. The Counsel for the appellant points out that when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under Section 73 of the Act and the conditions precedent for imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Act are identical, namely existence of elements of fraud, collusion and willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Act with intent to evade payment service tax; and once the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that for the relevant period, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
