2016 (10) TMI 769

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld that: - the decision of Central Government Industrial Tribunal may be relevant and the facts mentioned therein need to be verified and examined by the original adjudicating authority. The said decision was passed after the Order-in-Original was issued and therefore, the same has not been examined by the original adjudicating authority. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 76 of Finance Act. Aggrieved by the said order, both revenue as well as IGSPL are in appeal. IGSPL also sought to introduce the decision of Central Government Industrial Tribunal in their own case as an additional evidence by filing of Miscellaneous Application. 2. Ld. counsel for IGSPL argued that they had not collected service tax for most of the period except for collection of ͅ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rgued that the 7th show-cause notice pertaining to period Oct 2006 to March 2008 is barred by limitation for the period October 2006 to September 2007. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He argued that in show-cause notice dated 12.04.2005 involving demand of ₹ 44,26,599/- only Section 76 77 of the Finance Act were invoked for invocation of penalty and section 78 of the Finance A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X