2018 (9) TMI 1068 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Extended period of limitation – tax liability along with interest paid after being pointed out by audit – Penalty u/s 77 and 78 of FA – Held that:- The issue of taxability on the impugned services was mired in litigation and was set to rest only by the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pagariya Auto Center Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad, [2014 (2) TMI 98 – CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] – Especially when there was confusion on this issue, nothing prevented the Department from having issued Show Cause Notices at regular intervals for the normal period of limitation.
–
The demand in this case is restricted to the normal period of limitation from the date of issue of Show Ca
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
erest thereon on this score and has also imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 rejected the appeal. Hence, appellants are now before this forum. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri T. R. Ramesh, appearing for the appellant, submits that they do not have a case on merits, however, he contends that as the issue was subject matter of litigation, the demand has to be restricted only to normal period of limitation and, further, there cannot be any imposition of penalties. He relies upon the case law of Brij Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, 2012 (25) S.T.R. 489 (Tri. – Del.) and Addis Marketing Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
iod of limitation. In the event, the argument that the matter came to light in respect of the appellants only after audit, will not wash in this case, especially when similar demands were being made against other automobile dealers on the same issue. We also find that the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Advocate support his contentions. In Brij Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal had restricted a similar demand for the normal period of limitation with the following observations 14. The period involved in this appeal is 20-10-2004 to 18-12-2007. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 21-2-2008. As can be seen from the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial forums in different ways as may be seen from the decisions qu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =