TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 - the demand is well beyond the period of time limit prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/52494/2018-EX (SM) - Final Order No. 53173/2018 - Dated:- 25-10-2018 - Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Prashant Sukhla, Adv. for the appellant Shri P.R. Gupta, DR. for the respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that the appellant has failed to discharge service tax on the service provided for value of ₹ 35,79,315/- and thus there was no payment of service tax amounting to ₹ 3,63,669/-. For being pointed out, the appellant has paid the said amount on 23/11/2012. Thereafter, the Revenue has demanded the interest on the late payment of service tax by the noticee. The appellant has not paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he prays for setting aside of the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has stated that in this case as there was suppression of fact by the appellant on account of not paying the service tax and also not showing the same in the statutory record filed by them under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. He further relied on the para 7.1 of the impugned order which is reproduced as below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeal), in the impugned order has not considered the aspect of limitation as demand is raised for the period from 2009 to 2012, vide the impugned Show Cause Notice on 29/1/2017. Thus the demand is well beyond the period of time limit prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. And, therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
