2018 (5) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner (AR) for the respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in providing taxable service falling under categories of 'supply of tangible goods and site formation and excavation' and 'earth moving and demolition'. During the scrutiny of the records of the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant was supplying tangible goods, namely, bulldozers to va .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... conducted. The appellant stated that they have filed a detailed submission. However, the adjudicating authority has passed the order. It is also submitted that the value of the service was arrived at without any basis. He submit that in the show cause notice straightaway demand was made assuming that the activity of the appellant is of supply of tangible goods and raised a demand. It was obligato .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... second show cause notice invoking extended period is not legal and is time-barred as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nizam Sugar Factory v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)]. 3. Shri Vivek Dwivedi, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X