9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents are provider of services as "Stock Broker". The respondents got registered and were paying Service Tax on the stock broking activities till June 96. However, suddenly they stopped paying Service Tax on the brokerage activities during the period July 96 to August 97. The revenue issued eight show cause notices to them for filing the returns for a period July 96 to August 97. The respondents did not file return nor any reply to the show cause notices. The revenue issued a show cause notice dated 21-3-2001 for the recovery of Service Tax from the respondents. The respondent's resisted the show cause notice and contested the recovery on the ground that they were cheated by some people who sold forged and fake shares, hence, they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring on behalf of the respondent submits that the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as setting aside the penalty under Section 78 is correct as he has invoked the provisions of Section 80, having been shown the reasonable cause of non payment of Service Tax. He further submits that in cross objection they have challenged the confirmation of the demand on the ground that show cause notice dated 21-3-2001 is blatantly time barred and this submission has not been considered by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the order. It is his submission that the department was aware that the respondents was not filing the quarterly returns and, hence, subsequent show cause notice dated 21-3-2001 is improper. It is his submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r issue is being taken for the first time before me, it is well settled law that the limitation can be raised at any time, even at the appellate level. Since the impugned order has not considered the submissions regarding time bar, I find that the impugned order needs to be set aside on this point and also on the fact that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any reasoning to invoke the provisions of Section 80 while setting aside the penalty under Section 78. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the issue afresh as regards the limitation and setting aside of the penalty by invoking Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
