9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormal period of limitation. CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the tax burden of input service had been discharged by the appellant and, in the absence of any specific bar, the entitlement for availment of CENVAT credit of such tax paid by the appellant cannot be denied. This would, doubtlessly, alter the quantum of demand on, as well as the complexion of the proceedings against, the appellant. In particular, the scope for applicability of section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 would need to be ascertained in the light of lack of ingredients for the invoking of the extended period of limitation. Matter remanded back to the original authority for a fresh determination of the final tax liability. - ST/135/2008-DB - Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould not have included services rendered prior to 10th September 2004 and that another proceeding for inclusion of services rendered by appellant between 18th August 2002 and 10th September 2004 had been dropped by Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax vide order dated 20th July 2005 affirming that the service provided by them was that of multi system operator. He informed that this decision of the Assistant Commissioner was taken up in revision and, thereafter, the Tribunal in its order dated 11th May 2009, though subsequent to the order now impugned, had accorded a finality to the nature of their activities as multi system operator which precluded a change of stance to tax them under the original definition of cable operator for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... once settled by the Tribunal, should be reopened in the absence of a contrary order from a judicial authority. Hence, for all practical purposes, the appellant is a multi system operator and such operators were brought within the ambit of taxation only from 10th September 2004. The notice leading to the impugned proceedings has, in the light of the decision in re Nizam Sugar Factory Pvt Ltd, erred in seeking to recover tax beyond the normal period of limitation. 6. On behalf of the appellant, it is also contended that their entitlement to CENVAT credit, as recipients of input service, limited the tax liability only to such amount as had already been deposited by them and appropriated in the impugned order. It would appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
