9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. Rep. by Ms. Neha Garg, DR for the respondent. Per B. Ravichandran: The appeal is filed against the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II. The appellants are engaged in providing various services to their clients, which are mainly with eference to procurement of goods, promotion of sale of goods and related activities. The service tax liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod. He also submitted that this contention was made before the lower authorities. However, due consideration was not given to their submission and the same was dismissed on the ground that there were different contracts and invoices and tax liability has to be examined independently in each case. Ld. Counsel submitted that their overall activities in all the earlier proceedings were sought to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence, the Department proceeded after collecting details of each contract to ascertain the tax liability. The tax liability in the present case has been correctly arrived at and the same has to be upheld. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The demand is contested mainly on the ground of time bar in issuing notice. We find that the notice though mentions the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, we do not find tenable justification to allege suppression on the part of the appellant. The appellants have been put to adjudication twice for their activities under the very same tax entry "BAS" and both the cases were dropped either originally or on remand proceedings. In these circumstances, we find no justification for the subsequent demand by invoking suppression of facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
