9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )]. -1. Heard both sides. 2. Learned ACA, Shri Anjan Sarkar arguing for the appellants states that the impugned demand has been made for the year, 2000-2001 through a show cause notice issued on 20-6-05. The show cause notice does not give the basis of calculation for arriving at the demanded amount and despite a plea made to the Adjudicating Commissioner, no basis was provided to the appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the normal period of limitation is not sustainable, as no ground was made out in the show cause notice for invoking the longer period and in fact, the longer period of limitation provided under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was not at all invoked. 3. Heard the learned S.D.R., Shri J.K. Jha for the Revenue. At the stage of deciding the Stay Petition, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand notice has been issued nearly four and a half years after the relevant period, but the relevant provision providing for extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 has not been invoked in the show cause notice. There is also no allegation of fraud, misstatement etc. in the show cause notice. As such, the finding of the Adjudicating Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount which is an elementary requirement for issue of any demand notice. 4.1 In view of our finding as above, we are of the view that since the basis of calculation of the demand has not been given to the appellants, nor the longer period of limitation has been invoked specifically in the show cause notice, the proceedings flowing from such a defective show cause notice, are neither legal nor pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
