2014 (6) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both sides, I find that the demand of Rs. 1,02,937/- stand confirmed against the appellant on the ground that during the period 8.7.04 to 3.2.05, they have provided rent-a-cab services and outdoor catering services without keeping themselves registered. 2. Without going into the details on merits of the case, I find that the show cause not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence the present appeal. 4. Admittedly, the show cause notice issued on 26.4.2006 pertaining to the period 8.7.04 to 3.2.2005 is barred by normal period of limitation. Further, the original adjudicating authority having granted the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act to the appellant, has held that there was no suppression on the part of the as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xtended period of limitation either. Reference is invited to the decision of this Tribunal in Solitz Corporation vs. C.S.T., New Delhi ; 2009 (14) STR 642 (Tri-Del.); to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Pune II - 2013 - TIOL -898 - HC - MUM -ST and to the decision of this Tribunal in Royal Travels vs. C.C.E. , Vadodara - 2011 (21) STR 31 (Tri-Ahmd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X