9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject matter of Tribunal decisions in the case of Pratap Singh Jyala vs. CCE Merut II [2015 (12) TMI 819 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it was observed that whether individual concern are to be treated as commercial concern, was the matter of interpretation, in which extended period of limitation would not apply. Also, when the balance sheet contents mention all the consideration received, no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nki Arora, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri Sanjay Jain, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, we find that the Service Tax to the extent of ₹ 1,20,652/- stand confirmed against the appellant along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount under section 78 and of the same amount under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. In addition, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commercial concern. This has led the appellant to believe that inasmuch as she was working in her individual capacity, being proprietor of the firm, there was no requirement to pay any Service tax. It is the appellants contention that entire consideration received by them was being reflected in the balance sheet, which is a public document, and as such no malafide or suppression can be attrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a proprietorship unit and there was lot of confusion about their tax / obligation read with the fact that all the activities were reflected in the balance sheet, we are of the view that the demand raised beyond the normal period of limitation is time barred. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. (pronounced in the open court on 23/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
