9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant Shri Raman Mittal, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellants, M/s Vir Enterprises, Ropad, are allegedly engaged in the provision of Cargo Handling Services and Manpower Recruitment Agency Service to M/s PACL, Naya Nangal, Punjab. A Show Cause Notice dated 17.10.2008 and a corrigendum dated 04.06.2009 were issued to the appellants demanding service tax of Rs.7, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot barred by time and the appellants did not contest the same; that the appellants have rendered Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service during the period 2003-04 to 2006-07 and that service tax on the same was not quantified by the jurisdictional authority and the same is to be quantified and recovered by the jurisdictional authorities. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant is before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Cargo Handling Service. 3. Learned Counsel submits that learned Commissioner not only travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice but upheld the invocation of extended period, mechanically, even though there was no suppression etc. on the part of the appellants. He submits that in the cases where extended period is invoked, demand cannot be sustained for the normal period. He relies on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the orders in a mechanical manner; nothing has been brought forth as evidence to show that the appellants have indulged in suppression of facts etc. with intent to evade payment of duty so as to necessitate the invocation of the extended period. It is also the case of the Revenue that the appellants were registered with them and were paying service tax and therefore, there was short payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for some of the same transaction, once it is found that the extended period of limitation is not invocable. This proposition find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Alcobex Metals reported in (2003) 4SCC 630=2003 (153) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)." 7. The Principal Bench of CESTAT has followed the above in the case of Shyam Spectra Private Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
