TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred - we are of the view that the demand for the same period, how in once case is time barred and how in other case it is not time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a contrary view as regards the time bar. We, therefore, remand the matter (Appeal No.ST/86291/13) filed by the party to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-consideration of the issue on limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/CO/91107/14, ST/86291/13 & 85398/14 - A/87914-87916/17/STB - Dated:- 14-6-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. P.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for appellant Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The issue involved is that whether sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main contractor discharge the service tax liability. He also placed reliance on the following judgements: a) East Coast Engineering - 2017-TIOL-1294-CESTAT-Hyd b) SV Engineering Constructions - 2017-TIOL-433-CESTAT-Hyd c) Lone Star Engineers - 2016-TIOL-2609-CESTAT-CHD d) Power Mech Projects Ltd. - 2017 (48) STR 165 (Tri-Hyd) e) Visesh Engineering Co. - 2016 (43) STR 232 (Tri-Hyd) f) Nana Lal Suthar - 2015-TIOL-2357-CESTAT-DEL g) Urvi Construction - 2010 (17) STR 302 (Tri-Ahmed) h) Synergy Audio Visual Workshop Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (10) STR 578 (Tri-Bang) i) Oikos - 2007 (5) STR 229 (Tri-Bang) j) Neil Enterprises - 2011 (22) STR 161 (Tri-Mum) 5. Shri A.B. Kulgod, learned Assistant Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the party s appeal No.ST/86291/13, the demand is prima facie time barred. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the extended period is invocable demand was sustained. In this regard, we are of the view that the demand for the same period, how in once case is time barred and how in other case it is not time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a contrary view as regards the time bar. We, therefore, remand the matter (Appeal No.ST/86291/13) filed by the party to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-consideration of the issue on limitation. Since, we decided the matter only on the time bar, we are not going into the issue on merits. As a result, the Revenue Appeal No.ST/85398/14 is dismissed. Appeal filed by the party, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
