TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order. Therefore, by following the precedent decision of Tribunal in the case of PNC Construction Co. Ltd. Vs CCE, Chandigarh [2012 (12) TMI 878 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot [2013 (11) TMI 402 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein it was held that toll collection on highways cannot be held to be "Business Auxiliary Service" being provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egory of Business Auxiliary Services or not. 2. We find that the identical disputes were the subject matter of earlier orders of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of PNC Construction Co. Ltd. Vs CCE, Chandigarh , Final Order No. ST/A/599/12-Cus dated 11.06.2012, wherein it was observed as under : 4. After hearing both the sides, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri.-Bang.), again the same status was reiterated. As regards limitation, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Brij Motors P. Ltd. reported as 2012(25) STR 489 (Tri.) has held that when the issue is interpreted by judicial forums in different ways, the extended period cannot be invoked in such a situation. 3. Similarly, in the case of Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
