TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view to suppression of material facts or failure to remit tax with an intent to evade the same, inviting application of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Period in issue in the present appeals is July 2003 to November 2005. Show cause notice was issued on 31.1.2006. Only part of the period is therefore within the normal period of limitation. In the light of the fact that there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal which stood resolved by the Larger Bench decision in Pagariya Auto Center (2014 (2) TMI 98 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)), we are satisfied that invocation of the extended period was not justified - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces provided by the dealers of motor vehicles in such circumstances fall within the ambit of BAS defined in Section 65(19) and enumerated to be a taxable service in Section 65(105)(zzb), was the subject matter of conflicting decisions. Some decisions ruled that such activities fall within BAS while other decisions ruled to the contrary. 5. The conflicts came up for consideration before a Larger Bench in Pagariya Auto Center vs. C.C.E., Aurangabad and the legal position was clarified by the order dated 12.9.2013 reported in 2014 (33) STR 506 (Tri-LB). The Larger Bench answered the reference observing that the large number of decisions cited at the bar and in the order of reference to it, spelt out uniform principle to guide determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be characterised as arising with a view to suppression of material facts or failure to remit tax with an intent to evade the same, inviting application of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 7. The period in issue in the present appeals is July 2003 to November 2005. Show cause notice was issued on 31.1.2006. Only part of the period is therefore within the normal period of limitation. In the light of the fact that there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal which stood resolved by the Larger Bench decision in Pagariya Auto Center (supra), we are satisfied that invocation of the extended period was not justified. We so declared the position. The appellants are howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
