9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest is concerned. It is apparent that appeal was partly allowed directing the Commissioner (Adjudication) to re-quantify the demand. Further from para 6 (a) of the order, it is apparent that there is no contumacious conduct of the appellant for deliberate violation of the provisions of Service Tax Laws as has otherwise also been held by Commissioner (Appeals). When both these observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-2-2019 - MR. V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Varun Gaba, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. G.R. Singh, D.R. ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA Present order disposes of two applications praying for rectification of mistake. One being filed by the appellant and the another by the Department. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the show cause notice is barred by limitation, as no extended period would have been invoked by the Department for absence of any malice on the part of the appellant. It is impressed upon that the final order is appreciating the same still there is no express mention of the impugned demand to be limited to the normal period thereof. Rectification accordingly, is prayed. 3. After hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that there is no contumacious conduct of the appellant for deliberate violation of the provisions of Service Tax Laws as has otherwise also been held by Commissioner (Appeals). When both these observations are read together in the light of the ground of appeals that it is clear that ground for invoking extended period of limitation has not available with the department accordingly hold that des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
