9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 07.10.2004 and October 2005 to March 2007 - SCN not hit by limitation. Grant of cum tax benefit - Held that: - There is no allegation that appellant had collected service tax from their customers but had not paid the same to the exchequer. It is also a fact that the issue of taxability in respect of stage carriages/contract carriages and tour operators was mired in confusion during impugned period and only after the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators Association of Tamil Nadu Vs UOI [2001 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein the matter had been settled - plea of cum duty benefit is granted - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/18 & 19/2008 - 42376-42377/2017 - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere adjudicated. Proceedings initiated in the SCN No.14/2006 dt. 13.04.2006 were dropped by the adjudicating authority. In respect of SCN No.21/2005 dt. 08.07.2005 revised amount of ₹ 48,02,834/- was confirmed and demanded along with interest liability thereon. Proposed demand of ₹ 4,73,693/- in the third SCN 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 appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the facts. 5. The appellants are conceding tax liability in respect of the period October 2005 to March 2007 in SCN No.15/07 dated 12-04-2007 involving tax liability of ₹ 4,73,693/- and in respect of SCN No.21/2005 dt. 08.07.2005, however limited to the normal period of limitation therein. The ground touted 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
