2019 (6) TMI 1735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... od of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant was having a bonafide belief that since he was providing services to Indian Railways which is part of Government of India, the services are not liable to be charged under the levy of service tax particularly in terms of Sl. No. 12 of Mega Notification No. 25 of 2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Therefore, the extended period of limitation was not available to r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tative on behalf of revenue, we note that appellants were providing various services to Indian Railways in the nature of 'Maintenance or Repair Service'. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant, since they had not paid any service tax on the said activity and the proceedings culminated into passing of the impugned order where out of the demand of Rs. 87,51,222/- after giving benefit o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the extended period of limitation is not available the penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was also not leviable to the appellant. 2. Therefore, after setting aside the penalty under Section 78 and setting aside the demand which is beyond the normal period of limitation, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court).
Case laws, Decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X