2016 (6) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the appellant Shri Amresh Jain,  A.R  for the  Respondent/Revenue ORDER Stay application along with appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2014, in terms of which service tax demand of Rs. 65,75,890/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties on the ground that  appellant did not pay service tax demand (Rs.61,2,547/-)  under Architect Servi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was made to the appellant for construction/supervision charges.  Thus way back in November  2007  everything came to  the knowledge of the  Department and therefore  allegation of suppression could not be made against the appellant  as a consequence  of which the demand is hit by time bar as it pertained to the extended period. 3.  Ld. A.R. for Revenue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecution  of the contract work etc. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellant was correctly  covered  under Architect/Management or Business Consultants services.  He supported the impugned order and added that  the appellant was guilty of suppression and it is immaterial  when the Department came to know of the evasion.  4. We have considered the cont .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ful mis-statement/suppression of the  fact on the part of the appellant  and the date on which the Department came know  of the evasion is immaterial in that regard. However, we notice that in November 2007,  if not prior thereto, the Revenue was in the knowledge of the nature of the services rendered and therefore, the appellant  does  have an arguable case  to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X