9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019 (1) TMI 2028 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] . From the above decision in the appellant s own case it is clear that the issue has been raised earlier also by the Revenue therefore, the activity of the appellant was very much known to the department, hence, the department was not prevented to issue the show cause notice for the subsequent period within a normal time period. It is also noted that during the relevant period i.e. 2005 -2006, the board circular dated 31.10.1996 was in force and according to which the appellant was not required to pay the service tax being a sub-contractor. For this reason also the appellant had a bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay any service tax. The issue of limitation has been decided by the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/2019 dated 23.01.2019. Therefore, in the present case also the demand is not sustainable on limitation. She further submits that the issue was not free from doubt moreover, it was clarified in the favour of the appellant vide Circular No. F.No. 341/43/96- TRU dated 31.10.1996 according to which the appellant being sub-contractor is not liable to pay the service tax. Subsequently, when the larger bench in the case of Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd - 2020 (33) GSTL 116 (Tri. LB) has decided the issue whereby the sub-contractor was made liable to pay service tax, the issue was resolved. Therefore, in this position there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Hence, the demand is time bar. 3. Shri G. Kirupanandan, Learned As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circular, the bonafide belief entertained by the appellant is correct. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 17,485/- is hit by limitation and the same is set aside only on time bar without going into the merit of the case. 4.2 Demand of Rs. 86,625/- was raised on the service of management consultancy service which was admittedly exempted under notification 59/98-ST and by amendment notification 15/2002-ST. Though the exemption was withdrawn by inserting the explanation but that cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, during the relevant period before amendment dated 01/08/2002, the service provided by CA in respect of management consultancy services was exempted. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 88,625/- is also set aside. Since, demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
