2012 (6) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondent   Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):   After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.53,598/- and penalties imposed under various sections, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue stands covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal.   2. After hearing both sides, we find that Service Tax stands confirmed against the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecisions of the Tribunal holding in favour of the assesses and as such has held the demand to be barred by limitation. For better appreciation, we reproduce para 14 of the said judgement   14. The period involved in this appeal is 20-10-2004 to 18-12-2007. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 21-2-2008. As can be seen from the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Courts have been taking the view that in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason. So we are of the view that the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation. In such a situation penalties are not impos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X