TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue any show-cause notice for more than three years and finally a SCN was issued on 21.12.2009 seeking demand of service tax for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 by invoking the extended period. The entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation of time - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/87755/14 - A/85835/2018 - Dated:- 28-3-2018 - SHRI S.S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI C.J. MATHEW, TECHNICAL MEMBER Appearance: Shri Vinay Jain, C.A. for appellant Shri M. Suresh, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent Per: S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19th March 2014 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntioned the aforesaid letter that the excess payment of service tax liability would be adjusted in subsequent months. The appellant had categorically stated that the above excess payment of service tax of ₹ 40,02,782/- shall be adjusted against our future liability on taxable services during the current financial year . Thereafter, show-cause notice dated 21.10.2009 was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why ₹ 70,23,625/- should not be demanded from them for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The main allegation in the show-cause notice is that the appellants are not entitled to adjust the excess amount of service tax paid in the present case on two grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the months of April and May 2006 and showed the same vide letters dated 24.4.2006 and 20.11.2006 respectively and returns dated 25.4.2006 and 21.11.2006 respectively but the department after a lapse of 3 years, initiated audit enquiry for the same. He further submitted that the entre demand is time barred as the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case. He also submitted that besides limitation, appellant has good case on merit also. 4.1 Learned Consultant referred to various judgements vide which such adjustments have been allowed in favour of the assessee. He cited the following judgements in support of its submission:- (a) Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. v. CCE - 2012 (27) STR 372 (Tri. Chennai). (b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of that the department did not issue any show-cause notice for more than three years and finally a show-cause notice was issued on 21.12.2009 seeking demand of service tax for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 by invoking the extended period. Further, we find that the department has not been able to bring on record any material which says that there was suppression of fact on the part of the appellant with intention to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, we hold that the entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation of time. Though the learned Consultant has submitted that the appellant has good case on merit also and the Tribunal vide its various order cited supra has allowed such adjustment but since we are allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
