9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the OIA No. 197/2005, dated 27-9-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. 2. Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they had not paid Service Tax in respect of Security Services rendered by them for the period from 16-10-1998 to 30-9-2002. The Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned Advocate submitted that the appellants were under a bona fide belief that they were entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/98-ST, dated 7-10-1998. It is seen that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 22-1-2004 for demanding Service Tax for the period from 16-10-1998 to 30-9-2002. As there is no suppression of facts, the entire demand is barred by limitation. 5. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no ambiguity with regard to applicability of the exemption as far as department was concerned. The department after a substantial lapse of time booked an offence case in 2002 and started issuing summons from July, 2002 onwards. In response the appellants obtained service tax registration on 2-9-2002 but still failed to comply with requirement of paying service tax and supplying informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f exemption although they were fully aware of TRU clarification in this regard. The department cannot defend its inaction. After making the above observations, the learned Commissioner (A) makes a volte face and holds that the bar of limitation is not applicable. We do not agree in view of the settled law in the matter reiterated by Apex Court s decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
