Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Indore

2015 (9) TMI 1467 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Invokation of extended period of limitation - Demand and imposition of penalty - Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - short tax paid - job work activities undertaken by the appellant - period involved is 2006-2007, whereas the SCN has been issued on 16.01.2009 - Held that:- the SCN dated 16.01.2009 has been issued, seeking recovery of service tax for the period of April 2006 to March 2007, which is beyond the period of one year. No specific allegations have been made in the SCN, justifying invo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

riod of limitation entails both civil and criminal consequences and, therefore, must be specifically stated in the show cause notice, in absence whereof, the court would be entitled to raise an interference. In view of the settled position of law that in absence of any specific allegation, alleging suppression, willful misstatement, fraud etc, the demand cannot be sustained beyond the period of one year. - Decided in favour of appellant - ST/815/2011-ST[SM] - Final Order No. 54090/2015 - Dated:- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are not amounting to manufacture and also not covered under Notification No. 214/86. Therefore, the Department initiated proceedings for recovery of service tax, claiming that the activities are covered under Business Auxiliary Service . During the course of audit, the appellant had deposited the service tax attributable to such service. Subsequently the SCN issued to the appellant seeking recovery of the short paid tax along with interest and also for imposition of penalty. 1.2 The said notice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

partment is barred by extended period of limitation. The period involved in the present case is 2006-2007, whereas the SCN has been issued on 16.01.2009, which is beyond the period of one year from the relevant date. He further submits that the proviso contained in sub- section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1944 has not been invoked in the SCN dated 16.01.2009. it is his further submission that ingredients mentioned in the proviso to Section 73(1) such as fraud, collusion, willful missta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tation of time. To justify his above stand, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs HMM Ltd. reported in 1995 (76) ELT 497 (S.C.), Larsen & Turbo Ltd. vs CCE Pune-II reported in 2007 (211) ELT 513 (S.C.) and also the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of S. Jain vs UOI reported in 2002 (144) ELT 262 (Del.). 3. Per contra, Sh. R K Mishra the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impug .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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