9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate for the Appellant (s) Shri A.Roy, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER Per : P. K. CHOUDHARY : The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the adjudication Order-in-Original No. 21/PR. COMMR/ST/GHY/2021-22 dated 16/02/2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of CGST & CX., Guwahati Commissionerate by which the demand of service tax for FY 2015-16 was confirmed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial year 2015-16. Hence the appellant claims that no demand could have been made against the appellant for the said FY 2015-16 invoking extended period of limitation as the department was already aware of the business of the appellant. The appellant relied on the judgment of NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, A.P. (2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)) in this regard. The appellant al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent SCN by the department in 2021 based on the same ITR findings cannot be sustained as the department was already in knowledge of the activities of the Appellant and had also given a no due certificate to the appellant. We find that for issuance of SCN involving extended period of limitation, suppression has to be brought on record which has not been done in this case by the revenue. Though th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
