9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or not - HELD THAT:- It is found that initially, a SCN was issued to the appellant for the very same activity, to re-classify their service under the category of cargo handling service , which was dropped by the Hon ble High Court. Later on, the Revenue sought to classify the said activity under the category of business auxiliary service by way of the impugned Show Cause Notice by invoking the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the demand has been confirmed against the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation under the category of business auxiliary service for the period from 01st October, 2006 to 31st August, 2010 whereas the Show Cause Notice has been issued on 17th April, 2012. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant had been awarded a work order from M/s. Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax was confirmed vide the adjudication order without considering the defence taken by the appellant that as per the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)] proceedings against the appellant were barred by limitation. 3. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 4. Today when the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. He therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 4.1. To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ganesh Trading Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Guwahati [Final Order No. 75162 of 2024 dated 06.02.2024 in Service Tax Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in these circumstances, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable and the charge of suppression cannot be alleged against the appellant. 8. In view of this and relying on the decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) and Ganesh Trading Company (supra), we hold that whole of the demand against the appellant is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
