GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 778 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (6) TMI 778 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (45) S.T.R. 78 (Tri. - Del.) - Demand of service tax - extended period of limitation - malafide intention - reverse charge - GTA services availed in the mining area for the purpose of transporting the mine product from the face of the mining area to the other areas - Held that:- The fact that the said Circular stand issued by the Board, and is in nature of clarification, is indicative of the fact that during the relevant period there was confusion. Furt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

D B. RAVICHANDRAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member - Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. As per facts on record, the respondent is engaged in extraction/mining of coal from surface and entered into agreements with various Goods Transport Agencies (GTA) for transportation of coal by road from the face of its mines upto the surf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

firming the said deposit amount alongwith confirmation of interest. 4. The respondents challenged the interest portion of the impugned order before Commissioner (Appeals), who held in their favour by observing as under :- "5. I have gone through the grounds of appeal and submissions made in the personal hearing. The demand of service tax has been accepted by the appellant and deposited the same under protest. However they contested the interest ordered to be charged by the Adjudicating Auth .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court's decision delivered in the case of CCE vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. reported as 2007 (211) E.L.T. 93 (S.C.) the extended period of limitation is not applicable and the major part of the demand raised on 25/6/2007 is time barred. However it is clear that limitation, being a law of procedure, cannot and does not take away any right, it only bars the remedy. Thus the payment made by the appellant, in this case for time barred demand, is legally valid payment. 6. As per Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version