TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be sustained. Admittedly, there is no sustainable ground in this case like fraud, misstatement etc., on the part of the appellant for defrauding the Government Revenue. Since the period of dispute is from May, 2004 to March, 2007 and the SCN was issued on 14/05/2008, the same is clearly barred by limitation of time, having being issued beyond the normal period - demand set aside - appeal allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04 to 31/03/2007). But she failed to get registration and pay service tax on the service under Business Auxiliary Service. The SCN issued on 14/05/2008 with proposed demand and recovery of Service Tax of ₹ 1,52,312/- along with appropriate interest and penalty. 3. Heard Mr. Kartikeya Narain, Advocate for appellant, fairly concedes that the services provided falls under the taxable categor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 He also submits that since there was no fraud, collusion or suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of Service Tax, penalty under Section 78 cannot be imposed on the appellant. 4. On the other hand, the Learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard the both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of time, having being issued beyond the normal period. Accordingly, the adjudged demand against the appellant cannot be sustained on the ground of limitation. 8. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, we allow the appeal in favour of the appellant. The appellant shall be entitled to consequential relief as per law. (Dictated Pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
