TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held that where the Tribunal finds that the demand by the Revenue is barred by limitation. There is no need to go into the merits of the controversy - the question does not give rise to any substantial questions of law being academic. Thus not entertained. Time Limitation - Whether the provisions of extended time period laid down in Section 73(i) are invokable in the present case? - Held that:- This question also not giving rise to any substantial question of law and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. Mr. Pradeep Jetley, with Mr.J.B. Mishra, for the Appellant. Mr. Prakash Shah, with Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. B.V. Jewels 2004 (172) E.L.T. 3. (S.C.), has held that where the Tribunal finds that the demand by the Revenue is barred by limitation. There is no need to go into the merits of the controversy. (iv) In the above view, the question (a) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial questions of law being academic. Thus not entertained. 4. Re. Question No.(b):- (i) The Respondent is registered under the Act. During the course of audit it was found that the Respondent had paid Royalty of ₹ 6 Crores on account of technical know how charges to a foreign party. (ii) On 12 January 2010 a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent demanding ₹ 73. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as the issue of charging service tax on reverse charge under Section 66A of the Act was pending in litigation before various Courts. Further it also records that when penalties under Section 78 of the Act were waived by the Commissioner on the ground that there was confusion with regard to taxibility under reverse charge mechanism at the relevant time of import of service, the same should apply to tax demand also. Thus on facts the impugned order of the Tribunal holds that the demand was barred by limitation. Thus allowed the application of the Respondent. (vi) Mr. Jetley submits that the the decision on merits would be very relevant to decide whether or not the extended period of limitation is involved. It is further submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
