Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 402 - AT - Central ExciseTime limitation - Business Auxiliary Service - Zinc Coating or galvanization - Job-work - since the principal-manufacturer not discharging any duty, appellant, being job-worker is called upon to pay the duty - Held that:- Undisputedly the appellant was registered under the Service Tax and was discharging service tax liability accordingly. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that the Revenue was not aware of the appellants' activities - When the appellant approached the Service Tax Department for registration, it disclosed every activity undertaken by them and if the Revenue was of the view that the process undertaken by the appellant is not covered under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' and amounts to manufacture, they were under an obligation to advice accordingly. Further, the central excise duty stands confirmed against them without taking into account the service tax deposited by them which accordingly to the Revenue itself was not required to be paid - there are no reasons to invoke the extended period of limitation, in the absence of any positive evidence to reflect upon the appellant's mala fide and accordingly the demand is set aside on the plea of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|