TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 AS, Balance Sheet, etc. during June, 2016, but thereafter, Revenue slept over the matter. Apparently the show cause notice is issued by way of change of opinion. The extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances - Appeal allowed. - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Jitin Singhal, Advocate for the assessees. Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Revenue. ORDER The issue involved in this appeal is whether the show cause notice has been rightly issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. The brief facts are as under. 2. That the appellant is a provider of Construction services other than residential complex, including commercial /industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Exhibit 8 3. That appellant received Letter dated 29.02.2016 from the Superintendent, Range-I, Service Tax, Gwalior, seeking documents for the F.Y.2014-15 and 2015-16 for scrutiny. The appellant submitted the following documents vide his reply dated 01.06.2016:- (1) Copy of Form 26AS for the period F.Y. 2014-15, (2) Copy of Income Tax Return for F.Y. 2014-15, (3) Copy of Balance Sheet for F.Y.2014-15, (4) Copies of ST-3 Returns for the period start from April 2014 to September, 2014 , October, 2014 to March, 2015 and April, 2015 to September, 2015 along with challans of discharging service tax liability 4. Further, submitted reply dated 16.09.2016 with the following documents:- (1) Copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the appellant had availed the abatement of 67%, instead of 60%, and further, amount of Rs.55,82,245/- was demanded alleging wrong availment of benefit under Notification. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 24.01.2020. The proposed demand totaling Rs.65,84,473/- was confirmed along with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 plus interest. Further, penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed under Section 77. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to allow the appeal by way of remand to the Original Authority. 7. Pursuant to remand, the Adjudicating Authority have dropped the major part of the demand and have confirmed the tax demand of Rs.7,54,124/- t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand to the extent of Rs.7,26,454/- for the period 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground of limitation. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterates the submissions made before the Court below and further submits that admittedly, the appellant have maintained proper records of their transactions and have regularly filed their returns. Further, admittedly the appellants records were audited by the Revenue in Feb., 2016 and in spite of taking notice of the classification of construction service under CCS/CICS and also the quantum of abatement, no objection was raised. Thus, the show cause notice is bad for invoking the extended period of limitation. 11. Learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
