TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a clear finding that the ingredients for invoking the extended period does not exist, the scope for recovery fails. The claim of the respondent that they are not engaged in the business of providing ‘security agency service’ merely because they are registered under relevant labour law does not stand the test of law to exclude them from tax liability and as the impugned order has examined the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 to March 2004 and from March 2004 to January 2005. The original authority confirmed demand of ₹ 21,80,826/- which was upheld by the first appellate authority on the ground that the noticee had not denied collection of the service tax but failed to deposit with the exchequer. In appeal before the Tribunal, it was held that the first appellate authority had not adequately scrutinized the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon by Revenue in disputing the impugned order having been set aside by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation, does not validate the grounds of appeal or submission to dispute the impugned order. There is no doubt that citing of the wrong provision will not, of itself, vitiate the demand. However, with a clear finding that the ingredients for invoking the extended period does not exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
