TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviso to Section 73 (1) exists. When on a particular issue during a particular period there was divergence of views on account of conflicting judgments of the Tribunal or High Courts and the assessee had paid tax in accordance with one group of judgments in his favour, he would have to be treated on having acted in bonafide belief and longer limitation period for recovery of short paid tax cannot be invoked - longer limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) would not be invokable and, as such, the demand is time barred - penalty under Section 78 also would not be imposable - Decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No.204 of 2009 - Final Order No. 51462/2014 - Dated:- 27-3-2014 - G Raghuram And Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 29/12/2008 against which this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 2. None appeared for the respondent, though a notice for hearing had been sent to them well in time. In view of this, so far as the respondent are concerned, the matter is being decided ex-parte. 3. Heard Shri Yashpal Sharma, the learned DR who pleaded that the issue involved in this case stand decided in favour of the department by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agarwal Colour Advance Photo System vs. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 608 (Tri.-LB). He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. He also emphasized that longer limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 177 (S.C.) and also in the case of Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) has held that when on a particular issue during a particular period there was divergence of views on account of conflicting judgments of the Tribunal or High Courts and the assessee had paid tax in accordance with one group of judgments in his favour, he would have to be treated on having acted in bonafide belief and longer limitation period for recovery of short paid tax cannot be invoked. We find, these circumstances exist in this case and hence longer limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) would not be invokable and, as such, the demand is time barred. For the same reason, penalty under Section 78 al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
