TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s-declaration could not have been invoked and in this case show-cause notice was issued in December, 2007 where the period for which the demand has been made is from January, 2005 to March, 2006. However, the fact remains that till the decision in the case of ITC Ltd.Vs. CCE, Guntur [2011 (3) TMI 186 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] all the decisions were in favour of assessee therefore invoking suppressio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax on GTA services received by them. Revenue entertained a view that this is not correct and accordingly proceedings were initiated which has resulted in impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner has held in favour of the respondents on merits relying upon several decisions of the Tribunal. Revenue is in appeal. 2. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submitted that in the case of ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal had considered several decisions rendered on the same subject unlike in ITC Ltd. case where only Panchmahal Steel Ltd. case was referred to. Further he also submits that respondent has a very strong case on limitation and all the decisions rendered by the Tribunal were in favour of the respondents and therefore suppression of facts or mis-declaration could not have been invoked and in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is not in order. Further, I also take note of the submission made by the ld. Counsel that even the original adjudicating authority has taken a view that the failure on the part of the assessee is acceptable as bonafide error and cannot be attributed to be willful intention to evade tax. In view of the above discussion, appeal falls on the ground of limitation alone and I am not going into merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
