9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for Appellant Shri Mohd Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa The challenge in the present appeal is to demand of Service Tax of Rs. 10,60,421/- along with penalty of identical amount imposed in terms of Section 78 of the Finance Act. Further penalties at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day stand imposed under Section 76 of the Act. 2. After hearing both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said audit, the appellant had not discharged their service tax liability, on reverse charge basis, in respect of GTA Services so received by them. The appellant accepted their laps and deposited service tax of Rs. 2,53,125/- along with interest, for which the payment was accepted by their Range Superintendent. 4. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir contention of the demand being barred by limitation and drawing our attention to various decisions of the courts. 5. On going through the same, we note that the Tribunal in the case of Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune reported at 2015 (40) S.T.R. 490 (Tri.- Mumbai) has held that Revenue authorities cannot invoke extended period of limitation when the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted for the second time, when 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. In such a scenario, longer period of limitation is not available to the Revenue. Accordingly, we set aside the demand on the point of time bar and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
