9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nature and content of the two taxable incidents i.e. the definition between business auxiliary services , which insisted from 2003 and business support services , which was a fresh levy introduced w.e.f. 01.05.2006. Concededly, the assessee was filing his assessment returns after 01.05.2006 when business support service was introduced. The mere advertence to the possibility of service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, insofar as it held that the extended period of limitation invoked by the Revenue under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, could not have been sought recourse to. We feel that the admitted facts in the present case are that the assessee was issued show cause notice on 23.07.2008 proposing assessment of service tax for the period 01.07.2003 to 09.09.2004. It was noticed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee entered into with its service recipients; that had adverted to levy of tax @ 5%. The CESTAT, to whom the assessee approached, confirmed the Commissioner s order to the extent of levy of demand. However, invocation of the extended period was set aside. The levy was confirmed to the extent that the assessee had filed returns under the head business support service which was introduced w.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case, was not correct. The CESTAT was influenced as is apparent from the reading of the order, by the prevailing confusion between the nature and content of the two taxable incidents i.e. the definition between business auxiliary services , which insisted from 2003 and business support services , which was a fresh levy introduced w.e.f. 01.05.2006. Concededly, the assessee was filing his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
