9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. B.H.E.L. and the Service Tax on such services were collected and deposited by the appellant into the Government Account. Thus, the appellant cannot decide its tax liability differently in respect of the same services provided to different recipient of service. Time limitation - Held that: - it cannot be said that the appellant had not suppressed the material facts from the Department in disclosing the particulars regarding the services provided to Bhopal Sahakari Dugth Sangh Maryadit - the extended period invoked for confirmation of the adjudged demand is in conformity with the statutory provisions. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/902/2012-[DB] - ST/A/54776/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mercial concern. He further submitted that the recipient of service i.e. Bhopal Sahakari Dugth Sangh Maryadit cannot be considered as client of the appellant, in order to fall under the purview taxable service defined under Section 65 (68) read with Section 65 (105) (k) of the Finance Act, 1994. He also submitted that the show cause proceedings are barred by the limitation of time, for the reason that there is no suppression, mis-statement etc. on the part of the appellant to defraud the Government Revenue. Thus, he submitted that the proceeding having been initiated beyond the normal period, the same is not maintainable for confirmation of the adjudged demand. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. appearing for the respondent reiterated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration towards the service includes service tax liability and burden of the same lies with the appellant. The service recipient in the disputed case had also confirmed the fact that the amount paid to the appellant was inclusive of Service Tax. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant had not suppressed the material facts from the Department in disclosing the particulars regarding the services provided to Bhopal Sahakari Dugth Sangh Maryadit. Thus, the extended period invoked in this case for confirmation of the adjudged demand is in conformity with the statutory provisions. 8. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
