9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Extended period of limitation - Held that: - The issue being interpretational and as divergent views were prevailing during that period, we hold that the extended period is not invokable - major part of demand barred by limitation, and set aside - the amounts of ₹ 35,402/- and ₹ 25,311/- are upheld along with interest. The demand pertaining to the period 01/04/2007 to 12/11/2007, would lie within the normal period of limitation involving a demand of ₹ 3,50,817/- - demand confirmed for this part. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/254/2010, ST/2476/2010, ST/2136/2011 - A/31466-31468/2016 - Dated:- 10-11-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member(Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Texyard International Vs. CCE, Trichy [2015(40) STR 322 (Tri.-Chennai)]. c. The entire transaction undertaken by the appellant in the present case was in the knowledge of the Department since the year 2007. Therefore the invocation proviso to Section 73(1) is incorrect and erroneous and grossly incorrect as only the time limit of 1 year would apply to the appellant in the present case. d. The Department was aware of activities undertaken by the appellant since the investigation was conducted in 2007. This dearly shows that the Department was fully aware about the activities of the appellant. Still the Department has alleged suppression against the appellant to invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/2006 is set aside. It is also seen that part of the demand in the above appeals falls outside the normal period. The issue being interpretational and as divergent views were prevailing during that period, we hold that the extended period is not invokable. At this point, learned counsel submits that the period involved in the said appeal No.ST/254/2010, is 09/07/2004 to 12/11/2007 and show-cause notice has been issued on 23/09/2008. Hence major part of the demand is barred by limitation and the demand pertaining to the period 01/04/2007 to 12/11/2007, would lie within the normal period of limitation involving a demand of ₹ 3,50,817/-. We find in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel. In the circumstances, the followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
