9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the classification of the said services. In such a case, the extended period of time cannot be invoked - demand beyond the period of normal limitation period is not sustainable. The lower authority would quantify the demand falling within the limitation period. As regards the Revenue’s appeal, the same is against that part of the impugned order vide which benefit under Section 80 of Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals). Revenue being aggrieved with dropping of penalty by Commissioner, in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, has preferred the present appeal. 2. We have heard both sides duly represented by Shri Hrishikesh, Advocate for the appellant and Shri N. Pathak, ld. AR, for Revenue. 3. As per the facts on record the appellant has entered into an agreement with M/s. ICICI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such a scenario there cannot be any mala fide on the part of the appellant so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. However, he fairly agrees that part of the demand would fall within the limitation period and he is not disputing the same. He also relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Brij Motors v. CCE - 2012 (25) S.T.R. 489 (Tri.-Del.) wherein, while upholding the identic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations 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. 7. As is seen from the above, Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
