TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein, nevertheless, the appellant raised a plea of limitation levying demand on the assessee. Since it is pure question of fact, we feel that there could be no inhibition to confirm the demand order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. - Decided against the revenue. - Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1626 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri K. Vijay Anand, for the Appellant. Shri J. Shankarraman, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The Revenue is on Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the order dated 27-8-2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, made in Order No. 1053/2007, raising the following questions of law : 1. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 65(111) of Finance Act, 1994, a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue demanding a sum of ₹ 7,93,457/- being the Service Tax involved on the sale value of SIM cards under Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and interest involved under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 and also proposing to impose penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. On the proposal confirmed by the Joint Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals) and thereafter to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and claimed that it had been paying sales tax on the SIM card value during the period under dispute, consequently, they had not questione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the assessee would not be liable to pay Service Tax. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider the plea of limitation as regards the demand of tax. Thus, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is before this Court. 4. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue placed before this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (12) SCC 608 = 2011 (23) S.T.R. 433 (S.C.) - Idea Mobile Communication Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin, wherein the Apex C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
