9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause Notice dated 02.09.2009. It is seen that the impugned Order-in-Appeal corrected this mistake and deducted the amount of ₹ 33,560/- from the demand relating to Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2009. Further, when penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 were not imposed in respect of the demand pertaining to the Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2009 (which invoked the extended period under proviso to Section 73 ibid) on the ground that the issue was interpretational, it is difficult to fathom as to how the demand for the extended period can be sustained. As regards the contention of the appellants that whatever service tax is demanded would have been available as credit or they would have been eligible for refund under Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.01.2005 to 31.01.2009 treating the issue to be interpretational. In respect of Show Cause Notice covering the period 01.04.2008 to 31.12.2009, penalty was imposed under Sections 77 78 of Finance Act, 1994, but not under Section 76 by invoking Section 80 ibid. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for the period prior to 18.04.2006 as the legal basis for reverse charge mechanism came into effect from 18.04.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A in the Finance Act, 1994 and also deducted ₹ 33,560/- from the remaining demand in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2009 as it was covered under the Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2009. 3. The appellants have essentially argued that: (1) When the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining to the Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2009 (which invoked the extended period under proviso to Section 73 ibid) on the ground that the issue was interpretational, it is difficult to fathom as to how the demand for the extended period can be sustained. As regards the contention of the appellants that whatever service tax is demanded would have been available as credit or they would have been eligible for refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, even if not held fully acceptable, does lend support to the appellants contentions that there was no reason for them to indulge in mis-statement or suppression of the facts. 4. In the light of the foregoing, we find that prima facie the appellants have made out a fairly good case regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
