TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e normal period - Held that:- Whatever amount of service tax is to be paid by the appellant under reverse charge mechanism, the appellant entitled to avail cenvat credit. In that circumstances, relying on the decision of this Larger Bench in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. [2000 (7) TMI 105 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI], the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Penalty for the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed and the penalty is imposed under reverse charge mechanism by invoking extended period of limitation. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant availed certain services of advertising agency from service provider located outside India. On those services, the appellant did not pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism, therefore, an audit was conducted for the period April, 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat circumstances, no mala-fide can be attributable against the appellant. Hence, the extended period of limitation is not invokable, therefore, the demand pertains to the extended period of limitation are to be set aside and for the demands within the period of limitation, it is his submissions that as the appellant has paid service tax along with interest, therefore, in terms of Section 73 (3) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, extended period of limitation is invokable or not? (B) For the demand within limitation whether penalty under Section 77 78 can be imposed on the appellant or not? (A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period of limitation is not invokable or not? I find that in this case whatever amount of service tax is to be paid by the appellant under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of audit itself. As extended period of limitation is not invokable, therefore, a show cause notice was not required to be issued to the appellant in terms of Rule 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, I hold that a show cause notice issued to the appellant lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings against the appellant are dropped. With these terms, the appeal is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
