9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntious issue was not again examined in two subsequent audits. We are not able to find any infirmity with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) that extended period cannot be invoked; that in the case of SCN No.234/2008 dt. 22.09.2008 in respect of Rani Meyyammai Hall, the demand for the period from 23.09.2007 to 30.11.2007 alone will survive; that similarly, in the case of SCN No.234/2009 dt. 22.9.2008 in respect of Raja Muthiah Hall the demand only for the period 23.09.2007 to 30.11.22007 alone will survive. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/215/2012 & ST/216/2012 - 42491-42492/2018 - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)\ For the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In adjudication, the original authority vide an order No.82/2009 dt.30.11.2009 confirmed the demand of tax / cess as proposed in the notice with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 2. So also, a SCN No.232/2008 dt. 22.09.2008 was issued to Raja Muthiah Hall (hereinafter referred to as Raja ) proposing similar demand of service tax of ₹ 25,19,918/- and Education Cess / consequential Higher Education Cess of ₹ 45,537/, with interest thereon and imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 78 of the Act. In adjudication, vide an order No.81/2009 dt.30.11.2009 , the original authority confirmed demand of service tax / cess as proposed in the SCN with interest t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turns or by any other manner. Ld. A.R also mentioned that just because of the letter sent by Superintendent dt. 14.07.2004 to the appellant that donations collected by respondents should be assessed to service tax cannot be used as a defence for non-invocation of extended period. For these reasons, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand for extended period of limitation and also setting aside the penalty under Section 78 is unjustified and prayed the same may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent Ld. Advocate Ms. S. Vishnupriya pointed out that Commissioner (Appeals ) has gone into all the aspects of the matter and only then arrived at the conclusion that extended period of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
