9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Submission for Appellant Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per : Archana Wadhwa Appellants have made a request to decide the matter on merits. Accordingly, we have gone through the impugned order and have heard learned A.R. 2. Demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 2,91,258/- stand confirmed against the appellant by invoking the longer period by way of issuance of show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly in the nature of manpower for doing the given work, was taxable under the category of 'Maintenance & Repair Services'. As such in the absence of any mala fide, the longer period of limitation was not available. He has relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s Lal Singh vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Final Order No.71153/2018 dated 25/05/2018. 4. Without going to the merits of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated. The reasons and circumstances for invocation of the extended period as also for imposition of penalty under Section 78 are identical i.e. a mala fide mind. The appellate authority have already taken a view in favour of the assessee, in respect of penalty, it was not open to the appellate authority to hold to the contrary for invocation of longer period. Otherwise also we note that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing the Tribunal decision referred supra, we hold that the demand beyond the period of limitation is not sustainable. Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 76 and 77 are also not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation and remand the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of the demand falling within the limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
