9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on 22.06.2006 and the period of demand is 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2005 and thus the entire period is beyond the normal period of one year. In these circumstances, when the extended period is not invocable, and the entire service tax was paid before the issuance of Show Cause Notice, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act in terms of which even the Show Cause Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of ₹ 2,30,025/- was confirmed and the entire service tax demand (and interest of ₹ 21,108/-) deposited by the appellant was appropriated. However, no penalty was imposed by the primary adjudicating authority essentially on the ground that the appellant had deposited the entire service tax liability and interest prior to issuance of the Show Cause Notice and also by resorting to Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the impugned service during the comparable period, CESTAT in the case of South City Motors Ltd.(supra) observed as under:- 13. The period involved in this appeal is prior to 10-9-2004. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 20-4-2006. The Appellant is paying service tax from 10-9-2004. This matter relates to scope of the entry for Business Auxiliary Services . There was considerable doubt about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is evident that the extended period is not invokable in the present case. We find that the Show Cause Notice in this case was issued on 22.06.2006 and the period of demand is 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2005 and thus the entire period is beyond the normal period of one year. In these circumstances, when the extended period is not invocable, and the entire service tax was paid before the issuance of Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
