2018 (3) TMI 1247 – CESTAT, NEW DELHI – TMI – Time Limitation – grievance of the Revenue is that there is a case for suppression of material facts on the part of the respondent and impugned order should not have dropped the proceedings on limitation – Held that: – The impugned order held that seeing the accounts maintained and the nature of contracts and the correspondent with the Revenue by the respondent, there is no scope for invoking extended period – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – Service Tax Appeal No. 57713 of 2013 – Final Order No. 50626/2018 – Dated:- 9-2-2018 – Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) – for the appellant. Shri
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e the Original Authority held that the respondent is liable to taxes and imposed penalties also. The impugned order held that their activities are not liable to tax prior to 15/06/2005, the date on which the amendment in the tax entry for management, maintenance or repair service was brought in to include immovable property also. Considering the facts of the case, intimation by the respondent and various correspondence thereafter the impugned order held that no allegation of suppression, willful mis-statement cannot be sustained against the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. The grievance of the Revenue is that there is a case
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
order. On perusal of such discussion, we find no reason to vary the finding. The Revenue also did not come with any material facts to support such course of action. 4. Regarding limitation, we note that the impugned order elaborately examined the facts of the case. We note that the enquiry against the respondent started on 29/09/2004 by summon proceedings. The respondent obtained registration for service tax on 02/11/2004. The enquiry and verification continued for many years thereafter. Show cause notice was issued demanding service tax under management, maintenance or repair service. The impugned order held that seeing the accounts maintained and the nature of contracts and the correspondent with the Revenue by the respondent, there is n
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =