TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee - 1143 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2010 - Harsha Devani and H.B. Antani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)] . - In this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar, has challenged order dated 12-12-2008 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) [2009 (14) S.T.R. 129 (Tri.-Ahmd.)], proposing the following questions : [a] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is right in dropping the demand that SCN issued in this case and remanding the matter to the original adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee. The adjudicating authority in its order dated 17-8-2004 has merely stated that the assessee had suppressed the fact that it was providing management consultancy services and had also suppressed the value of taxable service provided and as such, was liable to penalty under Section 78 of the Act and has held that the services provided by the assessee fell within the purview of management consultancy services and confirmed the duty demand along with interest and penalties as proposed in the show cause notice. It was also held that the assessee was liable to be registered under the category of Management Consultancy Services . 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee had suppressed the fact that it was providing management consultancy services and had suppressed the value of taxable service provided. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), on behalf of the assessee a specific contention had been raised to the effect that the assessee had shown the income from the services in question in the balance sheet and that the activity of running such services was only a small and trivial portion of the entire manufacturing activity of the assessee. The assessee had made detailed submissions in support of its claim that the show cause notice was hit by limitation and hence, the demand was unsustainable. Despite such specific contentions having been raised by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for on quantification of the appellant s duty liability and penalty . 8. Thus, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record and considering the submissions advanced by the assessee has found as a matter of fact that there was no suppression on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal has further found that the assessee was entertaining a bona fide view that the services rendered by it did not fall within the ambit of management consultancy services and that at the relevant time a lot of confusion was prevailing in respect thereto. As to whether there is any suppression or mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty is a question of fact and the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
