9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta, AR. - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax along with interest is confirmed 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 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is before me. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case whatever service tax was paid by the appellant was entitled for cenvat credit to them, in that 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions. 7. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides, two issues arises from their arguments: (A) Whether in the facts and circumstances 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, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation penalty is not imposable on the appellant. Moreover, in this case, the appellant has paid service tax along with interest during the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
