2016 (2) TMI 1292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment of amount payable on account of services received, the penalty was imposable under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Central Excise Appeal No. 18 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2016 - S.C. Dharmadhikari And G.S. Patel, JJ. JUDGMENT The Bombay High Court Bench comprising Hon ble Mr. Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari and Hon ble Mr. Justice G.S. Patel on 1-2-2016 admitted the Cent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aside, in the absence of provision of Section 73(2A) of the Finance Act during the period of dispute? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand for the extended period under proviso to Section 73 with respect to un-billed shipments is sustainable? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding imposition of p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vices provided. It was further held that since the appellant not only misdeclared gross value of services provided but also concealed fact of network agreement, therefore the extended period of limitation was invocable. It was held that as the appellant had misdeclared gross value in returns inasmuch as value declared after adjustment of amount payable on account of services received, the pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X