TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act has not been imposed by extending the bona fide belief on the part of the appellant, the extended period would not be invokable in as much as the same ingredients are required for invocation of extended period of limitation. Such references can be made in the case of Sankhla Udyog Vs. CCEST, Jaipur [2014 (12) TMI 614 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] as also to the decision in the case of BSNL Vs. CCE, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K Arya, Member (Technical) Mr. Jatin Mahajan, Advocate - For Appellant Ms. Neha Garg, DR - For Respondent Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa : The demand in the present case stands raised and confirmed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for the period October, 2004 to March, 2009 by way of Show Cause Noticed dated 22.03.2010. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty in terms of section 80 of the Act. The issue of suppression of fact and invokability of section proviso to section 73 has already been discussed in preceding para and it has been held that the proviso is rightly invocable. However considering the fact that the noticees are a state government undertaking and the benefit of evasion of service tax would not go to any private person of company an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended period of limitation. Such references can be made in the case of Sankhla Udyog Vs. CCEST, Jaipur [2015 (38) STR 62 (Tri,-Del.)] as also to the decision in the case of BSNL Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2009 (14) STR 359 (Tri.-Ahmd)]. 5. We also further note that the appellant is a public sector under taking, being a State Govt. enterprise, in such a case allegation of wilful mis-statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
