9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y after the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators Association of Tamil Nadu Vs UOI 2001 (134) ELT 618 (Mad.) wherein the matter had been settled - extended period not invoked. Penalties imposed on the appellant under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are also set aside. - Appeal No. ST/18 & 19/2008 - Final Order No. 42376-42377 / 2017 - Dated:- 23-10-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri V. Vijay Anand, Consultant For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that appellants were operating buses for conducting tours and also o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CN dt. 12.04.2007 was confirmed. Penalties were also imposed under various provisions of law. Hence these appeals. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri V.Vijay Anand made oral submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : (i) Proceedings are hit by limitation. They had intimated the department vide a letter dt. 10.01.2003 that service tax would not be applicable to ordinary contract carriages and enclosed a list of contract carriages operated for daily trips. However, the SCN covering this period was issued only on 08.07.2005. Accordingly, out of the amount of ₹ 48,02,834/- for the period 1.4.2000 to 07.10.2004 (SCN No.21/2005 dt. 08.07.2005), only a proportionate d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outed against invocation of extended period is that they had sent a communication on 10.01.2003 to the Range Superintendent. However, in our view, that letter will not help their case since the dispute does not start on that date or even proximate to it but almost three years earlier. This letter therefore cannot then be a good argument for setting aside the demand for the period beyond normal period of limitation. 6. In the event, we hold that the SCN No.21/2005 dt. 8.7.2005 will not be hit by limitation. Appellant has conceded his liability for part of the period; there can then be no reason why such liability will not extend to the entire period covered by the notice. Accordingly, we hold that the tax liabilities will be demandable fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
