9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) TMI 286 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein, in identical circumstances, it was held that the longer period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue - the appellant will be entitled to bonafide belief and longer period of limitation will not be available to the Revenue to raise the demand in this case. The show-cause notice dated 08.08.2006 has been issued for demand of service tax for the period 16.07.2001 to 31.03.2004. Consequently, no demand will survive within the normal period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - S.T. Appeal No.94/09 - Final Order No.75416/2019 - Dated:- 25-2-2019 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 29,000/-. (iii) The appellants, during the period in dispute were availing abatement under Notification No.12/2003 dated 20.06.2003. Such abatement was availed w.e.f. 01.07.2003 for the value of goods and materials sold while providing the photography services. The Department was of the view that such abatement was not allowable inasmuch as the goods and materials were not sold separately but were consumed in providing these services. For this, the service tax liability is of ₹ 3.69 lakhs. 3. Show-cause notice dated 08.08.2006 was issued to the appellant proposing the demand of differential service tax not paid by the appellant which was decided by the original authority vide his Order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in 2017 (51) STR 267 (Tri.-Del.), in which the benefit of bonafide belief was extended by the Tribunal after noticing that the issue came to be decided only in the case of Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo System (supra). He also submitted that the ST-3 Returns filed periodically by the appellants were assessed by the Department. As such, the Department was not entitled to invoke larger period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for demand of service tax. 7. The ld.D.R. for the Revenue justified the impugned order. He submitted that the issue stands decided in favour of the Revenue and hence, the impugned order merits to be sustained. 8. Heard both sides and perused the record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
