TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case is only from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013. However, there is no show cause issued to the appellant under main clause of sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 and also that the entire information was disclosed by the appellant through ST-3 return. Therefore, there was no suppression on the part of the appellant. The extended period of limitation was not invokable in the present case. Had Revenue scrutinized ST-3 return in time, they could have issued demand during the relevant period under normal period of limitation and once the normal period of limitation is over after filing of ST-3 return, then the self-assessed assessment is finalized and was not open for raising demand. Thus the subject show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above stated period alleging that the appellant had willfully suppressed the material fact of consideration received by them. There were proposals for imposition of penalties. On contest, the original authority confirmed the demand and appropriated service tax of Rs.3,69,188/- which was paid through ST-3 returns. The original authority imposed various penalties. Appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Appellant inter alia argued the case on limitation before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the order-in-original through which service tax was confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was 18 months. The show cause notice dated 12.03.2014 was issued for the period from 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2013. Therefore, the normal period that can cover the issue in the present case is only from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013. However, there is no show cause issued to the appellant under main clause of sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 and also that the entire information was disclosed by the appellant through ST-3 return. Therefore, there was no suppression on the part of the appellant. We, therefore, hold that extended period of limitation was not invokable in the present case. Had Revenue scrutinized ST-3 return in time, they could have issued demand during the relevant period under normal period of limitation and once th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
