9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Supreme Court has held that where the matters stand referred to the Larger Bench, doubting the correctness of the earlier judgments, there was scope of entertaining a doubt about the views to be taken which rules out application of Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act and extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue. Appeal is allowed on the ground of time bar. - Appeal No. ST/51804/2015-CUS (DB) - ST/A/53194/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 20-9-2018 - MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sh. Ankit Totuka. Adv. for the appellant Sh. Sanjay Jain,DR for the respondent ORDER Per: Mrs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of time bar by submitting that the demand relates to the period 2005-06 to 5th July 2007 whereas the show cause notices stands issued on 19/4/2011. Ld Advocate submits that the entire facts were being reflected by them in their balance sheet and the audit, on the basis of which the demand stands raised, Revenue has picked up the figures from their balance sheet only. In such a case there can be no mala fide on their part. In as much as the entire activities and realisations were being reflected in the statutory records. Otherwise also, submits the Ld. Advocate that there are number of decisions of the tribunal to the effect that when the principle contractor has discharged the entire liability, there can be no further demand from the sub-co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it cannot be said that the there was any suppression or mis-statement on their part with mala fide intent. 6. In any case and in any view of the fact as per assertion of Revenue themselves that the issue on merits stands referred to the Larger Bench, this fact by itself reflects that there was doubt in the field and clarity of law was lacking. We also find that, admittedly there are precedent decisions of this Tribunal laying down that on payment of tax on the full contracted value by the principal contractor, no further requirement would fall upon the sub-contractor to pay the tax again. These decisions are sufficient for the appellant to entertain a bona fide belief that in as much as the principal contractor has discharged its full ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
