9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d all the documents furnished by the assessee - No material has been brought on record to show that there was an intention to evade payment of service tax on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the entire demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20251/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20158/2019 - Dated:- 12-2-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri MS Srinivasa and Shri H.Y. Raju, Advocates For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 07/12/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has confirmed the demand of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 to 31/03/2011. Thereafter a show-cause was issued to the appellant which was confirmed by Order-in- Original dt. 30/06/2015 along with interest and also imposed equivalent penalty under Section 78. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who dropped the demand for 2008-09 to 2010-11 but confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,08,807/- along with interest and penalty. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the correct facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dutiable as well as exempted goods or for providing taxable and exempted services. He also submitted that after the insertion of Explanation to Rule 2(e) of CCR w.e.f. 01/04/2011, they have reversed proportionate credit to the tune of ₹ 1,05,000/- vide challan dt. 22/10/2013 for the period April 2011 to March 2012. He further submitted that the entire demand in the show-cause notice is barred by limitation as the issue involved in the instant case is interpretational in nature and the appellants have been filing the returns regularly and disclosing all the information and the audit was based on the appellant s own record and the Department has not brought any material on record to show that the appellants had intention to evade paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
