TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises and obtained the required information. Hence, for demand of non-paid service tax for the subsequent period from February 2004 to 31/3/05, the longer limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) would not be applicable. Since SCN for this period has been issued on 15/10/07, the same is time barred hence, demand is not sustainable on the ground of limitation - Decided in favor of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 77 of 2011 - ST/A/313/12-CUS - Dated:- 13-4-2012 - D.N. Panda, Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Mayank Garg, Adv. for the Appellant B.L. Soni, DR for the Respondent Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member 1. The appellant in terms of their contract with M/s Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd., Udaipur (RSMML) were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also that the services being provided by them were not covered by the definition of rent a cab operator's service, but these pleas of the appellant were not accepted. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 16/9/10 upheld the Deputy Commissioner's order. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. Since a short issue of time bar is involved, the Tribunal vide stay order No. ST/759/11 dated 25/10/11 after granting stay had ordered listing of this appeal for final disposal on 27/12/11. Accordingly, the matter was heard for final disposal on 27/12/11. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it and emphasised that the appellant's activity was taxable in view of judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Kuldeep Singh Gill reported in 2010 (18) S.T.R. 708 (P and H). He also emphasised that since during the period of dispute, the appellant were not submitting ST-3 returns, it would amount to suppression of facts, and, hence, extended period has rightly invoked and, as such, the show cause notice is not time barred. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4. It is not disputed that earlier on the same ground and on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
