TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember, 2006 while the Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.02.2008. It is thus obvious that the entire demand is beyond normal period of one year (except for a period of mere three months i.e. October, 2006 to December, 2006 and that too only if the Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2008 was actually received by the appellants on or before 25.02.2008) and therefore is hit by time bar in view of the an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.03.2013, which upheld the service tax demand of ₹ 19,576/- confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the mandatory penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, in paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order observed as under:- 7. Regarding imposition of penalty ₹ 19,576/- under Section 78 of the Act, I find that issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. In the result appeal is partially allowed by setting aside penalties imposed upon the Appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Held Accordingly. 2. In this regard it is to be noted that the conditions/criteria for invoking the extended period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 are identical to the conditions/criteria for liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause Notice dated 23.02.2008 was actually received by the appellants on or before 25.02.2008) and therefore is hit by time bar in view of the analysis above. When the entire demand covering the period October, 2002 to December, 2006 is a meagre ₹ 19,576/- the demand for a mere 3 months will be pittance or less making it ridiculous to remand the case for computation thereof in view of the pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
