9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of NAVYUG ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE C, VADODARA-II [ 2008 (8) TMI 100 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD] has held that once tax is already paid on the services, it was not open to the Department to confirm the same against the Appellant in respect of the same services, since after accepting the said tax from service recipient, Revenue did not refund the same. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The demand is barred by limitation having been raised by invoking the longer period. The Revenue picked up the figures from the Income Tax Return maintained by the Assessee. The Income Tax Return has been held to be public documents by various decisions and it stands concluded that when the income arising from various activities stand reflected in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.87/ST/Asstt. Commr/JNP/2022-23 dated: 31.12.2022, by which the demand of Rs.6,34,476/- was confirmed and penalties were imposed under Sections 78, 77(1)(a), 77(2), 77(1)(c) & 70 of the Finance Act,1994. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Sri Kartikeya Narain, ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant was providing Works Contract Services worth Rs.37,79,837/- and supply of material worth Rs.4,50,000/- to Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd PVVNL., Jaunpur. The Service receiver PVVNL has paid all the taxes on Works Contract Services without taking the benefit of abatement as per Rule 2A of the Service (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Ld.Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce again confirmed then it will amount to double taxation. 8. Apart from the merits of the case, I also find that the demand is barred by limitation having been raised by invoking the longer period. The Revenue picked up the figures from the Income Tax Return maintained by the Assessee. The Income Tax Return has been held to be public documents by various decisions and it stands concluded that when the income arising from various activities stand reflected in the said public documents, it cannot be said that there was any suppression or misstatement on the part of the Assessee so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. Reference can be made to Tribunal's decision in the case of C.S.T., New Delhi v. Kamal Lalwani [2017 (49) S.T.R. 55 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
