9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Authority has dropped the proceedings, proceeded to confirm the demand on the basis of irrelevant discrepancies which was not the issue for determination especially when the Original Authority has accepted the receipts to be export proceeds on the basis of FIRC which is a legal document for acceptance of proof of export of service. The entire proceedings against the appellant were initiated on the basis of gross receipts as shown in the Income Tax Returns and Form 26-AS for the year 2014-15. The entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation because the Show Cause Notice was issued on 29.09.2020 but the same was served on 18.02.2022 whereas the period of demand is October 2014 to March 2015; and Commissioner (Appeals) has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the Original Authority accepted that the activity undertaken by the appellant is covered as export of service and dropped the proceedings in toto; and passed the adjudication order holding that the activity of the appellant was covered as export of service . The Revenue reviewed the adjudication order and thereafter filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellant also filed the Cross Objections; thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing both the parties allowed the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the adjudication order; hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4.1 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned order is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings on limitation and has simply held that the submissions on the issue are devoid of merit. 4.7 He further submits that the suppression cannot be alleged against the appellant when an activity has been shown in the requisite records including the bank account and Income Tax Returns on the basis of which the Show Cause Notice was issued. 4.8 In support of his submission on the issue of limitation, he relies on the following decisions: Gannon Dunkerley Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Adj.) Of S.T., New Delhi - 2021 (47) G.S.T.L. 35 (Tri. - Del.) Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of C. Ex., Bangalore - 2020 (41) G.S.T.L. 520 (Tri. - Bang.) Mega Trends Advertising Ltd. Versus Commr. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Show Cause Notice was issued on 29.09.2020 but the same was served on 18.02.2022 whereas the period of demand is October 2014 to March 2015; and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the limitation. 6.5 Further, I find that the extended period of limitation can only be invoked when the department establishes by cogent evidence that there is a suppression of material facts at the appellant s end with intent to evade payment of duty, whereas in the present case there is no suppression because the Show Cause Notice is based upon the documents including bank account and Income Tax Returns. 7. In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
