TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... states that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been shortlevied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with service tax. The period stipulated under Section 73(1) viz., "one year" was substituted by eighteen months by Finance Act, 2012 dated 28.05.2012. The period in dispute in the instant case falls prior to the amendment. Therefore, if the Department was of the view that service tax has not been levied or paid by the respondent, they could have invoked Section 73(1) within one year from the relevant date - Admittedly, this was not done and the Department seeks to invoke proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act. The pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal by the Revenue has been filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Final Order No.43104 of 2017 dated 06.12.2017 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, raising the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Has not the Hon'ble CESTAT fallen in error in holding that the respondent is not a commercial concern ignoring the explanation inserted to Section 65(105)(zzc)? 2. Has not the Hon'ble CESTAT fallen in error in ignoring the judgment of the Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Great Lakes Institute of Management Ltd. V. Commissioner of S.T., Chennai [reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 305 (Tri.LB)? 3. Has not the Hon'ble CESTAT erred in ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed. 4. We have elaborately heard Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. 5. Firstly, we have pointed out that no Substantial Question of Law arises for consideration in the instant case. The reliance placed on the larger Bench decision of the CESTAT in the case of Great Lakes Institute of Management Ltd. V. Commissioner of S.T., Chennai reported in [2013 (32) S.T.R. 305 (Tri. LB)] is wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. We need to remember that the respondent is a Government Aided Polytechnic College and the courses which have been conducted are part of an initiative under the Canada-India Institutional Cooperation Project. This project was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce dated 05.02.2008 and more particularly, paragraph 7, wherein, the officer states about the applicability of the extended period of limitation. Section 73 deals with recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. Sub-section (1) of Section 73 states that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been shortlevied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with service tax. The period stipulated under Section 73(1) viz., one year was substituted by eighteen months by Finance Act, 2012 dated 28.05.2012. The period in dispute in the instant case falls prior to the amendment. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
