TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Charanjeet Singh Khanuja Vs. CST Indore [2015 (6) TMI 585 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. However, in the same very decision, the Tribunal has observed that since there was bonafide belief in the industry itself and in as much as two views stands held by the department itself regarding taxability of activity, longer period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue. She submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 78 penalty is invokable when there is fraud with an intention to avoid payment of duty. As we have also observed that there was bonafide belief in the industry itself, imposition of penalty under the said section would not be justified. Accordingly, by confirming the demand against Mrs. Neela Wadhwa, we set aside the penalty imposed upon her. Her appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices which were liable to service tax. 2. We find that the period involved is 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2009 whereas the show cause notice stand issued on 22.10.2009. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant explains that Shri Sunil Wadhwa was working till 31.03.2008 and thereafter it was Mrs. Neela Whadhwa, who started providing the said services. The demand is hit by the bar of limitation an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation would not be available to the Revenue. She submits that the entire demand against Shri Sunil Wadhwa would fall outside the normal period of limitation. However, demand against Mrs. Neela Wadhwa is within the limitation period. However, he submits that penalty imposed upon Mrs. Neela Wadhwa under section 78 of the Act may be set aside, in as much as there was no suppression on her part wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
