TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order of adjudication was in respect of demand of interest and penalties therefore, only such amount could be set aside & not tax - Held that:- No substantial question of law arises as it is an inadvertent mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal as by mistake the word “tax” has been used in the impugned order, whereas it should have been interest which has led Revenue to frame the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (for short 'the Act') arises out of an order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on 18.01.2012 (for short 'the Tribunal') (Annexure A-2). The Revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the CESTAT was right in setting aside the demand of service tax as barred by limitation when the entire amount had been paid by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g registration from the Excise Department and without payment of service tax. But before the said show cause notice was received by the assessee, the assessee deposited the requisite amount of service tax. The learned Commissioner as Assessing Authority vide its order dated 18.07.2008 confirmed the demand of interest on the delayed payment at appropriate rate under Section 75 of the Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich has led Revenue to frame the said question. The order of the Tribunal shall be read as the setting aside of interest and penalty alone. In respect of question No. (ii), suffice is to state that the demand notice was served after one year of period in question. The assessing authority as well as the Tribunal have recorded finding of fact that there was no element of fraud or suppression in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
