9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent JUDGMENT: S.L. Peeran : The appellant is required to pre-deposit Service Tax amount of Rs. 1,49,513/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The appellants were carrying on the services of Security Agency. They were covered under the said category and were discharging the service tax. There were certain taxable income which according to them is not taxable as the said amount collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s vs. CCE, 2003 (55) RLT 20 (SC)=2003 (752) ELT 251 (SC) (iv) M.K. Kotecha vs. CCE, 2005 (179) ELT 261 (SC)=2005 (179) ELT 261 (SC) (v) CCE vs. Jalani Enterprises, 2001 (134) ELT 813 (Tri.) 2. I have heard both the sides in the matter. The learned Counsel look me through the submissions made by them before the authority and produced the copy of the judgments relied on by them. He pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the details has been disclosed in the Income Tax returns which indicates that there was no suppression of facts. Therefore prima facie, the judgments of the Apex Court cited above would have a bearing of this case. The Commissioner has also noted all the citations but has not given any finding in Para 18 of the impugned order. Prima facie, the appellants have strong case to succeed on time bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
