9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh: Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Revision dated 20.12.2006 in terms of which penalties under Sections 75A, 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. The said Order-in-Revision was issued in relation to the Order-in-Original dated 05.07.2006 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs. 2,30,025/- was confirmed and the entire service tax demand (and interest of Rs. 21,108/-) deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of facts and therefore the extended period is not invocable. The appellant referred to the judgement of CESTAT in the case of South City Motors Ltd. Vs. CST, Delhi [2012 (25)STR 483 (Tri.-Del.)]. 3. We have considered the appellant's contentions. We find that with regard to the impugned service during the comparable period, CESTAT in the case of South City Motors Ltd.(supra) observed as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand is raised beyond the time limit of one year and such demand cannot be sustained. However, demand if any, which is within the normal period of one year is sustainable. Interest is payable on such amount but no penalty is imposable. In the light of the aforesaid judgement, it is evident that the extended period is not invokable in the present case. We find that the Show Cause Notice in this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
