9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x. Since, the said ingredients mentioned in proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 are absent, the adjudged demand should only be confined to normal period only and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the said adjudged demand. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/50877/2014-ST[DB] - 50970/2018 - Dated:- 7-2-2018 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, CA Present for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, DR PER: S.K. MOHANTY This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Final Order No. ST (A)(375)(2012) - Cu dared 20.04.2012, passed by this Tribunal in the case of A.S. Sikarwar. Against the adjudication order dated 04.10.2012, Revenue has filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal of Revenue was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order, holding that the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax under the category of Residential Complex Service. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of A.S. Sikarwar (supra) relied on by the adjudicating authority has been distinguished by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeal) has further held that Construction of Residential Complex Service, though falls under works contract service W.E.F. 01.06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Lars e n Toubro Ltd. reported in 2015 - TIOL - 187 - SC. The Id. Consultant also submitted that the show cause notice issued by the Department is barred by limitation of time inasmuch as, the said notice was issued on 20.1 0.2011, seeking confirmation of the adjudged demand for the period from 2006 - 07 to 2009 - 10. He has relied on the decision s of this Tribunal in the case of Anand Construction Work Vs. CCE - 2017 - TIOL - 642 - Trib. - Del. and Bhopal Switchgear Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE 2017 - TIOL - 2901 - Trib. - Del., to state that the demand cannot be sustained on the ground of limitation. 4. The ld. DR appearing for the Revenue retreated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant that it had indulged into the activities of fraud, collusion, willful, mis - statement etc., with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. Since, the s aid ingredient s mentioned in proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 are absent, the adjudged demand should only be confined to normal period only and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of t he said adjudged demand. In this case, since the period of dispute is from 2006-07 to 2009 -10 and the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.201 1, the same is clearly barred by limitation of time, having been issued beyond the normal period. In context with limitation period for issuance of show cause notice, this Tribunal, in the case of Anand C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
