9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 03/12/2004 to which they were not eligible - invocation of Sub-section 1 of Section 73 of Finance Act - Held that: - ST-3 returns requires declaration of only the taxable value and also the value on which tax is not being paid and obviously the value on which tax was not paid, was declared by them in their ST-3 returns and therefore, suppression is not established - extended period not invocab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gross amount charged was between ₹ 750/- and ₹ 1500/- by availing benefit under Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004 to which they were not eligible and therefore, by invoking the proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 73 of Finance Act for extended period, demand of Service Tax of ₹ 1,27,750/- was raised. Further, there was proposal to impose penalty under Section 76 and 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eight of more than ₹ 750/- up to ₹ 1,500/- and therefore, Service Tax was payable by the appellant. He confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere with the confirmation of demand but set aside the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, demand was barred by limitation. He has further submitted that the grounds on which extended period was invoked are not stated in the show cause notice. 4. Heard the Learned A.R. for Revenue who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, we find that in Para-9 of said show cause notice Revenue has contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
