9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice tax but were interested in fulfilling their statutory obligations. Since appellants have made out a strong prima facie case on limitation itself, we are not going into other issues at this stage. We also take note of the fact that appellants have deposited an amount of ₹ 4,45,82,010/- and ₹ 6,92,291/- also. In view of the above, the requirement of balance dues is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal - Stay granted. - ST/25761/2013-DB - Misc. Order No. 20402/2014 - Dated:- 18-2-2014 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate for V. Lakshmikumaran V. Sridharan, for the Appellant. Shri Ganesh Havannur, Addl. Commissioner (AR), f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ole demand is only up to 31-3-2009 since after that there has been no transaction. 2.1. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that they had taken legal opinion from Shri P.K. Sahu, Advocate and Expert in Indirect Tax matters. Detailed opinion given by him taking a view that the activity of the appellant and the amount realized for payment towards inputs procured cannot be subjected to service tax since there is no service element in the activity undertaken by the appellant. This detailed opinion had been forwarded to the department also and appellant was seeking the opinion of the department as to whether they are liable to pay service tax. The chronology of events leading to the issue of show cause notice is as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. 29-6-2009 Appellant agrees to extend all co-operation. 3. In fact when we consider the chronology of events and the fact that appellant had taken legal opinion and the nature of service provided which is basically assisting in procurement of inputs and taking into account the fact that for demanding service tax, cost of inputs has also been taken into account, we consider that extended period in this case could not have been invoked because all along the appellants were seeking clarification from the department and had made it clear that they had no intention to evade payment of service tax but were interested in fulfilling their statutory obligations. Since appellants have made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
