TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire service tax as well as interest was paid before issuance of the show-cause notice, the provision of Section 73(3) would be squarely applicable and hence, penalty was set aside. It was further held by the adjudicating authority that since the assessee was under a bonafide belief regarding taxability, the question of invocation of Section 73(4) of the Act, does not arise. There are no in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority dropped the entire proceeding as initiated by the aforesaid show-cause notice. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against dropping of the demand of ₹ 3,40,048/- on the ground of limitation of time and for imposition of appropriate penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The ld.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterated the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lapse of one year from the date of receipt of the relevant information. The adjudicating authority has observed that since ingredients of suppression and malafide on the part of the assessee, are not present in the instant case, the extended period of limitation is not invokable for raising demand. He set aside the demand as hit by limitation. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant information. Since ingredients of suppression and malafide on the part of the assessee are not present in the instant case, extended period is not invokable for raising demand. The demand for the said amount is therefore hit by limitation and the same is liable to be set aside. We observed that the show-cause notice was issued for levy of service tax under Head of Business Auxilia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
