9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir activity. But thereafter, no action has been taken against the appellant within time bound period and only after 4 years a show cause notice has been issued to the appellant. Further, a clarification was also sought which was answered that on the activity undertaken, no service tax is payable. Further, the issue involved in this case, whether they are liable to pay service tax or not was also referred to the third member to deciding the issue. As there is a difference of opinion between the members of this Tribunal, whether the activity undertaken by the appellant is taxable or not. As the activity undertaken by the appellant itself under doubt whether it is taxable or not and investigation was conducted against the appellant in 2016 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,587/- along with the interest and penalties under Section 78, 77(1) and 77(2) were imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Today, when the matter was heard, learned counsel for the appellant contested matter only on limitation and not on the merits. It is his submission that in the facts and circumstances of the case, extended period of limitation is not invocable as in the year 2014 a clarification was sought by the association of which appellant is also one of the Member from the Revenue whether the activity undertaken by the members of association is being sub-contractor and providing the service of transmission of electricity for M/s. CSPDCL is liable to service tax or not. Vide letter dated 28.07.2014, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, if appellant had bona fide intention, he would have filed the ST-3 return in time and would have claimed the exemption as per clarification given to them. In these circumstances, extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. He has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ghanshyam Transport Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Vadodara reported as 2008 (12) STR 554 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and Rajesh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Chennai reported as (2023) 11 CENTAX 62 (Mad.) 5. Heard both the sides and considered their submissions. 6. The short issue involved in this matter is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that extended period of limitation is invocable or not? 7. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... difference of opinion between the members of this Tribunal, whether the activity undertaken by the appellant is taxable or not. As observed in the case of Commissioner Vs. K. Ramchandra Raoo Transmission and Projects Ltd. reported as 2021 (44) G.S.T.L. J18 (Tri. Hyd.) 9. As the activity undertaken by the appellant itself under doubt whether it is taxable or not and investigation was conducted against the appellant in 2016 itself. 10. In these circumstances, the extended period of limitation is not invocable. Therefore, I hold that show cause notice issued to the appellant is barred by limitation. 11. In these terms, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. [Dictated and pronounced in the open C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
