9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. Thus there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/142/2009-DB - A/10296/2018 - Dated:- 6-2-2018 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon ble Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Hon ble Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A. Mishra, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. 10/2009(STC)/LMR/Commr.(A)/Ahd dated 27.1.2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of larger period is correct in law. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that undisputedly on the issue of non-payment of service tax on provision of advertising service to Government Departments, SCN was issued to the appellant and on similar issue for earlier period, SCN was also issued and adjudicated. It is also not in dispute that both the SCNs were issued invoking extended period of limitation i.e. allegation of suppression of facts, mis-declaration etc. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that since the first demand notice was issued invoking extended period, alleging suppression second demand notice invoking extended period is bad in law. In support, he takes shelter of the rati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot discharged duty liability. The said SCN covered the period of assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87. Appellant responded to the second SCN and took the plea that the SCN under consideration was practically a repetition of the allegations contained in the SCN dated 28-2-1984 and for the period April, 1982 to September, 1982 the department had raised demands under two different SCNs. It was pointed out that carbon dioxide in the impure form was not marketable as it also contained carbon monoxide in lethal proportions. It was contended that they were under bona fide belief that since such impure carbon dioxide was not exigible to payment of duty, they were not required to file either Classification List or the Price List or take out licence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
