TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irming that the activity involved would fall within the scope of BAS, the Tribunal however set aside the longer period of limitation. The extended period cannot be invoked here also. Hence, the proceedings and consequential demand get hit by limitations - Impugned order cannot then survive - appeal allowed on the grounds of limitation. - Appeal No. ST/600/2012 - FINAL ORDER No. 40111/2019 - Dated:- 3-1-2019 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri J. Shankarraman for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The issue involved in the present appeal relates to the taxability of the services of distribution of the product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay when the matter was taken up Shri J. Shankarraman, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Charanjeet Singh Khanuja Vs. CST, Indore/Lucknow/Jaipur/Ludiana reported as 2016 (41) STR 213 (Tri.-Del.) to say that if not on merits the appeal should succeed on limitation as held by the Delhi Bench. 4. Per contra, Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) appeared on behalf of the Revenue supported the findings of the authorities below. He also contended that even after being pointed out as to the requirement of registration after the introduction of the negative list the appellant did not register himself nor did he even file ST-3 returns. 5.1 After hearing and af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not apply for Service Tax Registration or did not file ST-3 Returns or did not declare their activities to the jurisdictional central excise authorities, it cannot be inferred that this was a wilful act with intent to evade payment of service tax. We also take notice of the fact that in respect of appeals filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the activities of the assessees had taken the view that the same is not covered by the definition of Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. When on the issue involved in this group of cases, there were two views in the Department itself, it cannot be said that on the question as to whether the activity of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that when, on the issue involved in the batch of cases, there were two views in the Department itself, it cannot be said that on the question as to whether the activity of the assessee was taxable under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, there was no scope for doubt. Thus, it held that when there is scope for doubt in the mind of the assessee on a particular issue, the longer period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked. .. 16. In the impugned order, the Tribunal had followed the decision in Charanjeet Singh Khanuja, which has attained finality. The Revenue does not dispute the fact that there were two views on the issue within the Department i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
