TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US CHEMPHAR DRUGS LINIMENTS [ 1989 (2) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT] has held that there should be deliberate default of information which are required to be disclosed to invoke extended period of limitation. ST-3 returns were regularly filed and there was no observations made in the proceedings that information was lacking in the said ST-3 returns and there was no observation that the incomplete or incorrect information was submitted through ST-3 returns. Therefore, the extended period of limitation was not available to revenue - SCN issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal Nos.70683 to 70686 of 2016-CU[DB] - Final Order Nos.- 70959-70962/2019 - Dated:- 16-5-2019 - SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate And Shri M.K. Kaushik, Representative for the Appellant Shri Mohammad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR Above stated 4 appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100 Utraula 2010-11 to 2012-13 16/02/2015 5,04,48,395/- 63,53,521/- 2. 70684/2016 99 Khambarkhera 2010-11 to 2011-12 07/05/2014 4,23,51,595/- 1,26,25,532/- 3. 70685/2016 98 Maqsoodapur 2010-11 to 2011-12 07/05/2014 3,62,52,553/- 1,06,38,201/- 4. 70686/2016 101 Kunderkhi 2010-11 to 2012-13 16/02/2015 4,21,69,752/- 47,04,352/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation is not available to the Department, since burden is cost upon revenue to prove suppression etc. 4. The Original Adjudicating Authority has confirmed part of the demand and dropped part of the demand as stated in the table in the aforesaid para. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellant is before this Tribunal in the above stated 4 appeals. 5. Heard Shri Piyush Kumar learned Advocate along with Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. They have submitted that through the impugned order, Original Adjudicating Authority has held in para no.25 of the Order-in-Original No.100 that conduct of the party in vivisecting the contract for discharging service tax in so far as 3 services are concern, cannot be faulted. Further, in para-26 of the same order the Original Adjudicating Authority has held that appellant had correctly paid service tax in so far as the same relates to Consulting Engineering Service, Erection Commissioning and Installation Service and Business Auxiliary Service and the dispute is related with payment of service tax in respect of Civil Construction Service. The learned counsels have submitted that after sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -payment of duty is not equal to collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. iv) Gammon Far Chems Ltd., Vs Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore 1994 (71) ELT 59 (Tribunal) v) Gujarat State Petronet Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs Central Excise Ahmedabad 2013 (32) STR 1994 510 (Tri-Ahmd.) vi) Apex Electrical Pvt. Ltd., 1992 (61) ELT 413 (Guj). 6. Learned A.R. appearing for the revenue has supported the impugned orders. 7. Having considered the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of record, we note that the Original Adjudicating Authority has held in para no.26 and similar such paras in other Orders-in-Original that the appellant had correctly paid service tax in so far as the same relates to Consulting Engineering Service, Erection Commissioning and Installation Service and Business Auxiliary Service. Inspite of that in the subsequent paragraph, he has taken into consideration the entire amount received by the appellant from balance sheet for various years and deducted the value of the material used and from remaining portion calculated service at applicable rate and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
