TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ingredients for such a penalty under Section 78 did not exist in the case. There is no independent finding in the impugned order with reference to the proviso to the Section 73(1) of the Act. Prima facie, ingredients for a penalty under Section 78 and for invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) being identical, the learned counsel has made out a case against the demand of duty for the extended period - Assessee directed to make a pre deposit - Partial stay granted. - ST/2045/2011 - Stay Order No. 1280/2011 - Dated:- 22-11-2011 - Shri P.G. Chacko and M. Veeraiyan, JJ. Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar and Naveen Kumar, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Singla, JCDR, for the Respondent. ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, learned counsel has argued that the Construction service used by the appellant for setting up of Commercial Training and Coaching Centre fitted very well in the said definition. In this connection, he has particularly referred to the inclusive part of the said definition. 3. Without prejudice to the above submissions, learned counsel further submits that, in any case, the extended period of limitation was not invokable in this case. In the worst case, the appellant may be liable to pay Service Tax to the extent of Rs. 24,40,687/- coming within the normal period of limitation. In this connection, learned counsel has particularly referred to certain findings recorded by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in-house mechanism for training the new recruits of the company. However, on the limitation issue, learned counsel has been able to make out a prima facie case. On a perusal of the impugned order, we have found ourselves that, in the context of determining penal liability of the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the adjudicating authority recorded a finding to the effect that the ingredients for such a penalty under Section 78 did not exist in the case. There is no independent finding in the impugned order with reference to the proviso to the Section 73(1) of the Act. Prima facie, ingredients for a penalty under Section 78 and for invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) being ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
