9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative (DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. The facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with Service Tax Department under the category of telephone services. During the period 16/08/2002 to 14/05/2003 the appellant availed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 66,61,582/- for rendering output services under the category of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned order of the Commissioner, we find that there is no discussions on the above issues as raised by the learned Advocate. We also find force in the submission of the learned Advocate that demand of tax for the period 16/08/02 to 14/05/03 vide show cause notice dated 19/11/2004 is barred by limitation. In our view, all these issues are required to be examined by the Commissioner. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating Authority did not comply with the direction of the Tribunal and have not considered the issue of limitation as contested by the appellant and relied on his own earlier order on this issue. Therefore, the issue of limitation is required to be decided by this Tribunal. On limitation, he submits that the appellant had filed his regular Cenvat credit returns showing the nature of service on wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier round of litigation this Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue of limitation but the same was not considered. As the facts and records are available before us, therefore, we are having the privilege to decide the issue of limitation. As admitted that the appellant had filed Cenvat credit returns regularly and the same was received by Revenue and in the knowledge of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
