TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity in such situation in terms of Section 66A has been upheld - demand upheld. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the issue relating to service tax liability on the recipient of service was a subject matter of large number of litigations - there is no justification for invoking allegation of willful mis-statement, suppression of fact with intend to evade service tax etc - demand barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve paid a commission of ₹ 69,19,138/- They paid service tax on this amount on various dates during September to December 2006, alongwith applicable interest. The total service tax paid is ₹ 7,77,841/- alongwith an interest of ₹ 45,529/-. A show cause notice dated 22/10/2009 was issued to the appellant to recover the above said service tax amount, with interest and penalties. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 11/12/2008. This decision was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 14/12/2009 [2010 (17) S.T.R. J57 (S.C.)]. The Board issued clarification on acceptance of the said decision on 26/09/2011. Accordingly, it is pleaded that there could be no case for invoking extended period in the absence of any ingredients like suppression, willful statement etc. on the part of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of services received by the appellant after 18/04/2006. 5. However, the appellants had forcefully contended that the whole demand is hit by limitation in terms of Section 73 (1). In this connection, we have pursued the show cause notice, original order and the impugned order. The show cause notice and the Original Authority justified the demand for extended period only on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
