TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sponsored by the distributor. The demand also has been restricted to the normal time limit Matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for restricting the demand strictly in terms of the observations and directions in this order - penalty set aside - appeal disposed off - matter on remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 264/2011-DB - Final Order No. 55800/2016 - Dated:- 1-12-2016 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri S.K. Sarwal, Advocate for the appellant Ms.Neha Garg, DR for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The appeal is filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur dated 19.11.2010. The appellant is engaged in the activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 65 (19)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994. Show cause notice was issued and service tax demand to the tune of ₹ 1,82,585/- was confirmed against the appellant along with interest and penalties. When this order of the Original Authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), the same was upheld. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard Shri.S.K. Sarewal, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Neha Garg, ld. DR for the respondent/Department. 4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant admitted that the issue on merit stands decided against them in a series of decisions of the Tribunal. Specifically, he referred to the Final Order No.ST/A/51818-51855/2015-CU(DB) dated 9.6.2015, which has since been followed by the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above decision is reproduced below:- When, on the issue involved in this group of cases, there were two views in the Department itself, it cannot be said that on the question as to whether the activity of the asessees was taxable under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, there was no scope for doubt. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) when there is scope for doubt in the mind of an assessee on a particular issue, the longer limitation period, under proviso to Section 11 A(1) cannot be invoked and in our view, the ratio of this judgement of the Apex Court is applicable to the facts of these cases. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
