9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue that the respondent had recovered any amount representing Service Tax in respect of the taxable service provided by it and retained such amount without depositing into the Government Exchequer. Non-payment of Service Tax during the disputed period i.e, 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2006 was owing to the reason that there were confusions with regard to levy of Service Tax on the disputed service, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tative Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER S.K. Mohanty Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Central Excise, Ahmedabad, wherein the show cause proceedings initiated against the respondent were dropped, holding that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the proposed demand. 2. Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the clarification issued by the CBEC, the charges of suppression, mis-statement, etc cannot be leveled against the respondent. In context with the submissions that the proceedings are barred by limitation of time, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the following decisions rendered by the judicial forums: 1. Cherrytech Interlisolve Ltd. 2019 (2) TMI 29 TRI Chennai. 2. Ruchi Infotech Ltd.- 2015 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the respondent had recovered any amount representing Service Tax in respect of the taxable service provided by it and retained such amount without depositing into the Government Exchequer. Non-payment of Service Tax during the disputed period i.e, 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2006 was owing to the reason that there were confusions with regard to levy of Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
