9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the entire service tax along with interest was paid, there was no need to issue the Notice as provided in Section 73(3) of the Finance Act. Thus, the Notice issued by invoking extended period is bad in law and it cannot be sustained. The adjudicating authority went ahead and adjudicated the Notice and imposed penalties under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. As there was no suppression involved and there was no intention to evade payment of service tax, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, not imposable in this case. As there was no violation of provisions of Section 77, no penalty imposable under this section. In the case of ORISSA BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION CORPN. LTD. VERSUS CCE., BHUBANESWAR [ 2008 (8) TMI 585 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case the assesse is on a bonfide belief that tax is not payable by them. In this case they paid the service tax, even though the liability is not on them. Hence, they prayed for setting aside the penalties imposed in the impugned order. 2. In their submission, the Appellant stated that there was no service tax liability on them as a receiver of service, since the service provider Newsco had an office in Mumbai. The department approached Newsco to ascertain whether they have paid service tax on this transaction. However, put the issue into rest, they deposited the service tax along with interest and informed the department vide letter dated 11.12.2009. After more than a year the department issued Notice dated 16.03.2011, by invoking th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he service tax along with interest, to put the issue at rest and informed the department vide letter dated 11.12.2009. After more than a year the department issued Notice dated 16.03.2011, by invoking the extended period of limitation. In the adjudication, the Commissioner confirmed the service tax payable along with interest. He also imposed penalties under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. 8. We observe that the entire issue of service provided by Newsco to the Appellant was within the knowledge of the department. The Appellant was in correspondence with the department and informed the department about the payment of service tax by them vide letter dated 11.12.2009. Thus, we observe that there was no suppression involved in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 4 months approximately of the inspection carried out by the authorities. Counsel appearing for the revenue informs us that file is misplaced and is not traceable. 6 . Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without laying any proposition of law, we hold that the department was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, the Act ) and accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on this point is reversed. We hope that the department shall initiate some action against the erring officer/official for issuing show cause notice to the assessee after a gap of approximately two years and four months from the date of inspection at the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entical delay was noticed by the Tribunal, we hold that in the present case, the plea of limitation succeeds. Since we are deciding this issue on limitation, the merits are not considered. 5. On the ground of limitation, we allow this appeal with consequential relief. 11. In the case of Shree Alloys Industries Vs CCE ST, Jaipur-II,2015 (39) STR 869 (Tri - Del), it has been held as under: 14 . On limitation the appellant has submitted that the investigation was conducted during the period 15-8-2008 to 20-12-2008 and show cause notice has been issued on 14-9-2010 by invoking extended period of limitation. The said issue has been dealt by the Hon ble Apex Court of Orissa Bridge Construction Corpn. Ltd. (Supra) wherein Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on their visit to the factory on 5-11-1999. The records were seized and statements were recorded on that day. The department took its own time to issue the Show Cause Notice on 25-7-2002. Therefore, the appellants are seeking the benefit of time bar. The citations referred to are not directly on the point. In the case of Namtech Systems Ltd., the question was pertaining to use of foreign brand by an Indian company and the dispute was settled by the Larger Bench. In so far as the use of brand name of another person, a Notification No. 01/93-CE dated 28-2-1993, clearly spells out that the benefit will not be extended to those manufacturers who affixes the specified goods with a brand name or a trade name (registered or not) of another pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
