TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT] followed. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/343/11-Mum - Final Order No. A/2582/2015-WZB/STB - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - M. V. Ravindran, Member (J) And C J Mathew, Member (T), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri M H Patil, Adv For the Respondent : Shri B Kumar Iyer, Supdt (AR) ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. PI/RKS/25/2011 dated 23.02.2011. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the appellants are holders of Service Tax Registration No. AABCT5507BST001 and are engaged in providing installation and Commissioning of Plant and Equipment' services to various clients. During the course of audit of the records of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the due process of law confirmed the demands raised within limitation period and dropped the demand for the period 1.7.2003 to 31.3.2004 on ground of limitation or also the demand of interest, imposed penalties. On an appeal filed by the appellant, authority rejected the contention raised by the appellant and upheld the order-in-original. 4. Learned counsel would take us through the case records in detail. After submissions on merits, he would submit that the entire issue is hit by limitation in as much, the records of the appellant were audited by the audit section in 2006 and no objections were raised as to the facts that appellant has discharged the entire service liability and filed the returns to the authority. It is his submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Revenue that appellant has undervalued the services hence service tax liability arises. 9. We find that the show cause notice has invoked the extended period for the demand of service tax liability. It is noticed by us that the records of appellants audited by the audit party of the Revenue in 2006 and vide audited report no 288/2006-07, for a period on 01/04/2003 to 31/12/2006, the authorities raised various quarries (sic) but not in respect of the short payment of service tax as is alleged in the show cause notice in question in this appeal. We find that the audit party of the revenue in the 2 nd audit conducted by them in 2008, vide audit report no 46/2008-09 came to conclusion that there was short payment of duty with intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondents that they had debited ₹ 2,08,760/against the Scrap Generation at Subcontractor end, where material is sent for processing under Rule 57 F(3) for the period January 94 to March 95. Therefore by the said letters the Petitioner had made the Respondents aware of the payment of duty on the scrap as well as on the Mill Rollers and considering the fact that the Respondents had carried out audit on the dates mentioned herein above, the said fact is conclusive in so far as the knowledge of the Petitioners' activities to the Respondents is concerned. Therefore, in our view, in the light of the audit carried out by the Respondents of the Petitioners' factory and the correspondence that is addressed by the Petitioners to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
