9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return within 6 months from the date when Finance Bill, 2003 received assent from the President of India i.e. 13.5.2003. This fact was known to the department only when audit was done by the officer of the department after appellant obtained registration. In view of the factual matrix extended period has been correctly invoked and demand is not time barred. Interest demanded from the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority. 2. Shri Laxmi Kanta Pal (Advocate) and Bandhu Brata Bhula (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that service tax was not payable on merits. That demand of interest by way of a corrigendum dated 21.7.2008 is not justified. It was strongly argued by the learned Advocate that show cause notice has been issued 2 years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d perused the case records. It is observed from the case records that appellant has not agitated the issue of payment of tax on merits before the first appellate authority. As per para 3 of the order-in-appeal dated 8.10.2012 appellant has only taken the ground of time barred in the grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority. Therefore, raising the ground for non-chargeability of tax o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 4.2 Regarding imposition of penalty it is observed that the Adjudicating authority has imposed a composite penalty of ₹ 97,755/- under sections 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 which is not permissible under the law. Further the issue of payment of service tax on the transportation services was disputable and that is why a retrospective amendment was required to be carried out. Und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
