9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce has been issued on 23.04.2012. Hence it is only the period from 25.04.2011 to February 2012 which the normal period of limitation for serving SCN. The demand for rest of the prior period is therefore held barred by the period of limitation. It has already been observed that the appellant has already admitted his service tax liability and has deposited the amount demanded voluntarily. Hence we confirm the demand for the normal period and set aside the demand for the extended period. The order under challenge/ Order-in-Appeal is upheld vis- -vis normal period and rest is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. - DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MRS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Kainaat, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 served upon the appellants proposing recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 44, 88, 894./-along with the proportionate interest and the appropriate penalties with respect to the amount received by them during the period October 2006 to February 2012 alleging that the demand proposed to be recovered is the amount of service tax short paid by the appellant during the said period. 3. The said proposal has been confirmed vide order in original number 15/ 2013 dated 31. 10 2013. The appeal against the said order has been partly allowed vide the impugned order in appeal holding that the liability the appellant towards short paid service tax comes to Rs 46,58,132 as against the amount of Rs. 51,80,982. Still being aggrieved of the said order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence it cannot be gathered that the receipt shown in the profit and loss account of the appellants inclusive of the advance security taken from the labor. Based on these observations, Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confirmation of demand of duty short paid for an amount of rupees 44, 88, 894/-. ii) The benefit of tax value, however, has been extended to the appellant observing that the appellant has not charged service tax on certain invoices. Hence it is evident that the amounts received by the appellants are the price cum tax. Based on this finding the above confirmed amount of short paid duty has been reduced to Rupees 46,58,132/- as against the amount of ₹ 51,80,982/-as was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use Notice has been issued on 23.04.2012. Hence it is only the period from 25.04.2011 to February 2012 which the normal period of limitation for serving SCN. The demand for rest of the prior period is therefore held barred by the period of limitation. It has already been observed that the appellant has already admitted his service tax liability and has deposited the amount demanded voluntarily. Hence we confirm the demand for the normal period and set aside the demand for the extended period. 11. In the light of entire above discussion, the order under challenge/ Order-in-Appeal is upheld vis- -vis normal period and rest is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. [Pronounced in the open Court on 06/11/2024] - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
