9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also been discharged by the appellant at that point of time, nonetheless, that is not done. However, neither has the department taken note of the discrepancy immediately and proximate to the payment of such belated tax liability. There is no whisper in the SCN concerning any ingredient present for invocation of extended period - demand for interest is certainly hit by limitation and will not sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 was issued proposing demand of interest liability amounting to ₹ 2,86,023/- which was confirmed by lower authority and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dt. 31.3.2016. Hence this appeal. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ms.V.Ubaya Bharathi, Ld. Advocate submitted that vide letter dt. 1.9.2009 they had enclosed the workings of service tax liability o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice was issued only on 31.1.2014. Ld. Advocate submitted that there are catena of decisions of higher appellate forums which have categorically laid down that limitation applicable to claim for principal amount applies to interest claim also. She pointed out that SCN dt. 31.1.2014 has not alleged any fraud, willful misdeclaraion or suppression of fact for non-deposit of interest liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case. It is not in dispute that the tax liability on GTA service was belatedly paid by the appellant on 5.9.2009. It is also not disputed that they had indicated the fact of the same vide two letters issued on 1.9.2009 and 7.9.2009. This being the case, although interest liability should have also been discharged by the appellant at that point of time, nonetheless, that is not done. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
