9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... market through exports and also engaged in the procurement of raw cotton/yarn and various handicraft and miscellaneous items from the domestic market and exporting in the foreign market, mainly, to Bangladesh. 2. A Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2012 was issued to the appellant proposing to demand Service Tax of Rs.1,08,20,905/- (including cess) under the category of 'GTA Service' and Rs.62,58,834/- under the category of 'business auxiliary service'. 2.1. The Notice was adjudicated vide the Order-in-Original No. 41/Commr/ST/Kol/2013-14 dated 20.11.2013 wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed a total Service Tax demand of Rs.1,70,79,739/- (including cess), along with interest, and imposed an equal amount of tax as penalty. He also impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Notifications, they are eligible for the refund of Service Tax paid on the GTA Service. It is their submission that the Department has disallowed the same on the ground that the appellant had not paid Service Tax and the Notifications allow refund of Service Tax paid, to the exporters; since the appellant had not paid Service Tax, the Department alleged that they cannot claim the benefit of the said Notifications. As the entire exercise is revenue neutral, the demand confirmed on this count is not sustainable. 4.2 The appellant further submits that the entire issue is barred by limitation of time; the Department was well aware of the activities undertaken by the appellant for the period from April 2007 to September 2007 and they have su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 28.02.2020 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75639 of 2019 - CESTAT, Kolkata] ii. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2016 (44) S.T.R. 465 (Tri. - Mum.)] iii. Star Alloys & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Raipur [2019 (21) G.S.T.L. 174 (Tri. - Del.)] iv. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., LTU, Mumbai [2016 (44) S.T.R. 82 (Tri. - Mum.)] 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 7. We observe that the appellant is mainly engaged in manufacturing and selling of hair band, rubber band, twist silk and various handicraft items in the domestic market as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtended period of limitation is not sustainable. In the present case, the demand notice for the period from 2007-08 to 2010-2011 has been issued vide the Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2012. Thus, we find that the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order is barred by limitation of time. Accordingly, we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable on the ground of limitation.
9. Since the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalties does not arise.
10. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 12.06.2024) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
