9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is factually incorrect. Consultant appearing for the appellant has also brought to my notice that the appellant has explained the discrepancy regarding the invoice dated 18.04.2015 but the learned Commissioner has wrongly interpreted the said invoice in order to confirm the demand. Thus, find this Tribunal in the case of M/s Girdhari Lal Construction Private Limited [ 2024 (9) TMI 241 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] has considered the issue of invoking the extended period of limitation and has held that when the show cause notice is issued on the basis of third party data, in that case, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Appellant s appeal succeeds on limitation without going into the merits of the case. - HON BLE MR. S. S. GARG, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the show cause notice along with interest and penalties by holding that the appellant has income from sale of goods which was not covered under the definition of service as provided under Section 65B(44) of the Act and no service tax was leviable upon the sale of goods under Section 66B of the Act. The Original Authority categorically held that the appellant was involved in the sale of goods, hence, was not liable to pay service tax under Section 73(1) of the Act and consequently, penalties were also dropped. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who accepted the appeal of the Department and set aside the order of the Original Authority. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Department has not been able to establish any suppression on the part of the appellant. 4.6 He also submits that the Original Authority has decided the case in favour of the appellant on the basis of the documents submitted by the appellant. 4.7 In support of his submission, he relies on the decision of Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Girdhari Lal Construction Private Limited vs. Commissioner of CE ST, Ludhiana Final Order No. 60507-60508/2024 dated 04.09.2024 in Appeal Nos. ST/61348/2019 ST/60004/2020. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked because the appellant did not supply the requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd party data, in that case, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. It is pertinent to reproduce the said findings in para 8 of decision of the Tribunal, which is reproduced herein below: 8. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The Show Cause Notice is apparently based on the findings of CERA audit on the accounts of the appellants; for the reason that the appellant has not submitted any documents; the demand has been raised on the basis of 26AS record. We find that during the impugned period, divergent opinion was being taken by the Tribunal and the Courts; no positive act of commission/omission on the part of the appellants is evidenced to allege suppression of fact, mis-declaration with intent to evade payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
