TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 59323 of 2013 (SM) - Final Order No. 58798/2017 - Dated:- 1-12-2017 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri O.P. Agarwal, C.A. for the appellant. Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per. Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal by the appellant/assessee a manufacturer of SS Pipes and Tubes is that they have paid service tax on outward freight from their factory to the place of buyer, whether the same is allowable and further whether the show cause notices is bad for invokation of extended period of limitation. 2. The brief facts as per the show cause notice dated 13 th December 2010 and for the period April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid by the appellant but charge from the buyer with the transportation of the goods upto the place of removal. As regards the ruling in the case of ABB Ltd. of Hon ble Karnataka High Court relied upon by the appellant it was observed that the same is not applicable as the matter is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that the show cause notice has been issued invoking extended period of limitation. During the relevant period under dispute a definition of input was amended w.e.f. 01/04/2008 and wherein in Rule 2 (l) instead of the words from the place of removal the words upto the place of removal were substituted. Further, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority or Tribunal or court concludes that the notice issued under the proviso to sub- Section (2) of Section 73 is not sustainable for the reason of that the charge of fraud, collusion etc. has not been established against the person chargeable with the service tax to whom the notice was issued, the Central Excise Officer shall determine the service tax payable by such person for the period of 18 months as the issue was issued for the offences for which limitation of 18 months applies under sub-Section (1). 5. Thus, the provisions of the Finance Act, 2013 amending sub-Section (2) of Section 73 of Finance Act are not applicable for the period under dispute. The learned Counsel further states that admitability the facts of the case as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
