TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be covered under the works contract which not in statue during the material period i.e 2006, they have not discharged the service tax under the category of erection and commissioning service. To that extent we hold that the demand for the period June and September 2006 is hit by limitation. As regards the demand within the limitation period i.e. November 2006 and September 2007, we uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant for Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) during the period June 2006, September 2006, November, 2006 and September 2007. 4. Learned Advocate would draw our attention to the fact that the contract entered by the appellant with MSEB specifically talks about the same being works contract. Being a works contract, they were under bonafide belief that the activity undertaken by them i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded by the adjudicating authority on the limitation. It is his submission that the appellant never approached the department nor disclosed the activity undertaken by them. Hence extended period is correctly invoked. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find on merits the issue is covered against the appellant as has been held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under the category of erection and commissioning service. To that extent we hold that the demand for the period June and September 2006 is hit by limitation and we allow the appeal to that extent. Since we have set aside the demand for the extended period consequently, interest liability and the penalty also needs to be set aside as the demands hit by limitation and we do so. 6.2 As regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
