9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R for the respondent Per S.K. Mohanty 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29/03/214 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur wherein, Service Tax demand of Rs. 94,00,365/- was confirmed along with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed demand was confirmed. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submits that the proceedings are barred by limitation of time in as much as the period of dispute is from April, 2007 to March, 2012, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 27/09/2012, which is beyond the normal period under Section 73 (1) of the Act. He submits that since the appellant had maintained ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords. 6. We find that the period of dispute, in this case, is from April, 2007 to March, 2012 and the show cause notice was issued on 27/09/2012. For issuance of show cause notice beyond the normal period of one year, the Department has to show that non-payment of Service Tax was due to suppression, fraud, misstatement, etc, with the intent to defraud the Government revenue. We find that based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that same was not payable by the appellant. Thus, Section 80 of the Act, in this case, can be invoked for non-imposition of penalties under section 76 and 78 of the Act. 7. In view of above, we partly allow the appeal to the extent of setting aside the impugned order, so far as it confirmed the adjudged demand beyond the normal period of limitation. The penalties imposed in the said order is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
