2021 (4) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... books of accounts and returns filed with the Department. In this view of the matter, the demand for the period July, 2012 to March, 2013 is barred by limitation. The appeal is allowed in part.
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S.C. Kamra, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Tamnna Alam, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether interest on differential amount of service tax due to revision of price of storage charges is payable under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The appellant had provided the storage facility to M/s. Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "FCI") consequent upon revision of prices with retrospective effect. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to reject the appeal confirming the order of adjudication. 7. Ld. Counsel submits that there has been subsequent development as the judgement of Apex Court Division Bench was doubted and the matter was referred and re-considered by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur -2019-TIOL-204-SC-CX-LB, whereby judgement dated 8.5.2019, the Apex Court has held that interest is payable under similar facts and circumstances for the period being the date of original invoice to the date of supplementary invoice. Accordingly, ld. Counsel does not contest the demand on merits. 8. However, he states that there is no allegation of any suppre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ordingly, he prays for consequential relief on the ground of limitation. 9. Ld. Authorised Representative relies on the impugned order. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there is no case of fraud, mis-representation or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant as they have disclosed the additional taxable turnover arising out of the issue of supplementary invoices and has also paid tax in time and also disclosed such turnover in their books of accounts and returns filed with the Department. In this view of the matter, I hold that the demand for the period July, 2012 to March, 2013 is barred by limitation. The appellant shall be liable to pay the balance demand in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X