TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retained such amount without depositing into the Government Exchequer. Non-payment of Service Tax during the disputed period i.e, 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2006 was owing to the reason that there were confusions with regard to levy of Service Tax on the disputed service, which is apparent from various notifications and circulars issued by the Government from time to time. Thus, under such circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i S.J. Vyas, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER S.K. Mohanty Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Central Excise, Ahmedabad, wherein the show cause proceedings initiated against the respondent were dropped, holding that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime was highly contentious and since the disputed service tax was paid pursuant to the clarification issued by the CBEC, the charges of suppression, mis-statement, etc cannot be leveled against the respondent. In context with the submissions that the proceedings are barred by limitation of time, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the following decisions rendered by the judicial forums: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the department on this issue. Under these circumstances the extended period cannot be invoked as no malafides could be attributed to the noticee. 6.2 In this case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the respondent had recovered any amount representing Service Tax in respect of the taxable service provided by it and retained such amount without depositing into the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
