Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 446 - CESTAT NEW DELHIImposition of penalty - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Malafide intention - Commissioner invoked Section 80 and deleted penalty - Held that:- Tribunal has taken note of the fact that different interpretations was being given by judicial forums to the classification of the said services. In such a case, the extended period of time cannot be invoked - demand beyond the period of normal limitation period is not sustainable. The lower authority would quantify the demand falling within the limitation period. As regards the Revenue’s appeal, the same is against that part of the impugned order vide which benefit under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 stands extended to the assessee. As we have also held that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee, thus limiting the demand within the period of limitation, benefit of Section 80 stands rightly extended by Commissioner (Appeals) - Following decision of Brij Motors v. CCE [2011 (11) TMI 410 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|