9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the case are that the appellant herein is a unit of the Indian Ordnance Factory located in Medak and engaged in producing Infantry Combat vehicles for the Defence. Since they have some excess capacity and they also engaged in Bullet proofing and Mine proofing vehicles for Para military force and CRPF and BSF. With respect to these supplies, they had either received the vehicles from the customers and bullet proofed and mine proofed them for a cost or in some cases and they procured the vehicles from the manufacturer of the vehicles and there bullet proofed and mine proofed and supplied them to the customers. 4. Three show cause notices were issued by the Department as follows: i) O.R. No. 32/2003 dated 03.11.2003. ii) O.R. No. 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal No. ST/123/2008 that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case since, the Department was fully aware to the activities under taken by them. The Department felt that the activities amount to manufacture and had issued show cause notices demanding excise duty on these activities which was subsequently dropped by the Commissioner and Additional Commissioner. Therefore, the appellant cannot be alleged to have committed fraud or collusion or made willful mis-statement or suppressed the facts from the Department andextended period of limitation is not applicable in their case. We respect to appeal No. ST/226/2008, he had also argued an additional ground that they are eligible for abatement as per Notification No. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the arguments in the Orders-in-Original and said that the assessee had not discharged their service tax liability and hence the Order-in-Originals were correct and need to be upheld. As far as the abatement under Notification No. 12/2003- ST with respect to appeal No. ST/226/2008 is concerned, he draws our attention to para 19 of the Order-in- Original which reads as below: "19. Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.06.2003 exempts so much of the value of all the taxable services, as is equal to the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service, from the service ax leivable thereon under Section 66 of the Act, subject to condition that there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture activity excise duties and subsequently, dropped those demands. Therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this regard and no penalty can also be imposed on the appellant for the same reason. The demand of service tax and interest is sustainable within the normal period of limitation. 12. As far as appeal No. ST/226/2008 is concerned, the Original Authority was fully willing to extended benefit of the abatement under the notification but the process had not submitted the relevant documents to substantiate for claim the abatement. We therefore find, it is a fit case to be remanded back to the Original Authority to enable the assessee to produce necessary documents. 13. In conclusion, we find that appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
