9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n no such objection was raised by the first Audit, which was conducted for the prior period in question, the appellant cannot be held guilty of any suppression of facts - longer period of limitation is not available to the Revenue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No.ST/51666/2014-CU[DB] - ST/A/72351/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 12-9-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r premises in August 2002 by internal audit team from Ghaziabad Commissionerate for the period 01.04.2007 to 30.06.2010, certain objections, as regards short payment of service tax was raised, which the appellant settled and Settlement Certificate dated 27.09.2010 was issued by their jurisdictional Superintendent (Audit) Ghaziabad. There is not dispute about the said fact. 3. A subsequent audit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier period and there was no proposal to pay any service tax in respect of payments of freight made to transporters. Further, all the figures stand reflected by them in their balance-sheet and profit and loss account in which case no mala fide can be attributed so as to invoke longer period of limitation. The said plea of the assessee was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority who c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise, Bangalore-I V/s MTR Foods Limited reported as 2012 (282) E.L.T. 196 (Kar.) has held that when all the facts are mentioned in the returns regularly and no objection is raised by the Revenue, extended period is not invocable. To the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV reported at 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
