9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier could not be subjected to tax under any other category – demand not sustainable X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposed to recover applicable interest on the service tax not paid as also to penalize them under various sections of the Act. 2. The proposals were contested by CFL. It was claimed that proposal to demand service tax had to clearly indicate the specific category of service which the party was alleged to have rendered. The notice had also not shown the period to which the demand pertained. Following enquiries initiated by the department they had furnished all relevant information by 24-5-2003. The demand was barred by limitation. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.1,97,577 under the category of 'storage and warehousing service' rendered during 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2003. Penalties were imposed under sections 75A, 76 and 77. Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by 24-5-2003. The relevant show-cause notice was issued more than a year after the appellant furnished the requisite information. The show-cause notice issued on 29-6-2004 was barred by limitation. Ld. SDR submits that proposing more than one service in the show-cause notice was not improper. The proper service under which the assessee had incurred liability to pay tax could be adjudicated only after hearing the assessee. The notice was not barred by limitation as the appellant had not filed the prescribed statutory returns in respect of the service it had rendered whereby the value of taxable service rendered by the appellant had escaped payment. In such a case, section 73(1)(a) of the Act which the show-cause notice invoked empowered th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
