9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt against the same and confirmed the demand by observing that tax payment by the Northern Coal Filed Ltd. by treating the same activity as GTA Services is of no relevance. We are of the view that the said findings of the Commissioner are outside the directions of the Tribunal, with which he was bound. Time limitation - Held that:- Except for the fact that appellant had not disclosed the said activity to the revenue, no evidence reflecting upon any malafide on the part of the appellant stands produced by revenue. The demand for the periods 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2007 stands raised by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 10.10.2007 and for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008 stands raised by show cause notice dated 14.10.2008 i.e. by i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th interest and for imposition of penalties. The said proceedings initiated against the appellant, by invocation of extended period of limitation, resulted in passing of an order by Original Adjudicating Authority, confirming the demands along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties. The Order of the Original Adjudicating Authority was challenged by the appellant before Tribunal, who vide Final Order No.56127-56131/2013 dated 12.04.2013 upheld the revenues contentions that the activity undertaken by them would be classifiable under the Cargo Handling Service . However, they accepted the assessee s stand that inasmuch as the same very services have already been taxed in the hand of M/s Northern Coal Fields Ltd., by treatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Northern Coal Fields Ltd. in which case no duty confirmation against the appellant would arise. However, the adjudicating authority instead of following the said directions of the Tribunal went against the same and confirmed the demand by observing that tax payment by the Northern Coal Filed Ltd. by treating the same activity as GTA Services is of no relevance. We are of the view that the said findings of the Commissioner are outside the directions of the Tribunal, with which he was bound. Similarly, as regards limitation, we note that except for the fact that appellant had not disclosed the said activity to the revenue, no evidence reflecting upon any malafide on the part of the appellant stands produced by revenue. The demand fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
