Petromarine NDT Engineers Versus CGST, C.E & C. C-Indore
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 453 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 25-10-2018
Appeal No. E/52494/2018-EX (SM) – Final Order No. 53173/2018
Service Tax
Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical)
Shri Prashant Sukhla, Adv. for the appellant
Shri P.R. Gupta, DR. for the respondent
ORDER
Per: Bijay kumar
The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Indore, vide which he has upheld the order passed by the lower Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original: 07/AC/ST/IND/2017-18 dated 13.11.2017.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant is provider of service and it registered wi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
yment of service tax by the noticee. The appellant has not paid the interest as demanded by the Revenue and accordingly, they were visited with the Show Cause Notice No. V(ST)3-81/SCN/Petromarine/2016 dated 29/5/2017. This case was adjudicated and the amount was confirmed. The appellant was not successful in appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) and hence this appeal.
3. Ld. Advocate, on behalf of the appellant, submits that the demand is time barred as the Show Cause Notice has been issued for the period starting from 2009-2012 on 29/5/2017. Year wise calculation chart, for demand is not also appended with the Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, he said that the original Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned or
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. The Appellant has also requested to void the interest. In this regard I find that there is no any provision to void the liability of interest in any circumstances. Therefore, no relief on this account can be granted to the Appellant. As such I hold that the confirmation of interest on payment of service tax after being pointed out by the Audit is justified”.
Accordingly he justified the impugned order.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and also perused the appeal records.
5. I find that in this case the Commissioner (Appeal), in the impugned order has not considered the aspect of limitation as demand is raised for the period from 2009 to 2012, vide the impugned Show Cause Notice on 29/1/2017. Thus the d
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =