9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the learned advocate for the respondent/assessee. However, we are conscious of the fact that the appeal has been preferred under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [the Act, in brevity] and we are required to consider as to whether any substantial question of law arises for considertion and if we find that there is a substantial question of law, then we are required to answer the question of law and, therefore, rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay may not serve the ends of justice, more particularly, the case in hand. Therefore, despite vehement objection by the learned Advocate for the respondent, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the aplication for condonation of dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the value of the taxable services under the category of "Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service" classifiable under sub Section 105(k) of Section 65 of the Finance Act. The show cause notice was not issued solely at the instance of the department but the department was directed to issue the notice on account of audit objection which has been raised consequentially. The show cause notice was otherwise barred by limitation but for invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant resisted the same and submitted their objection which was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority resulting in an order dated 7.3.2012 confirming the proposed sale made in the show cause notice and demanding service tax and also levying pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal held that the assessee had been disclosing all the facts and having been promptly filing the ST-3 returns and show cause notice had been issued only on 8th November, 2011 for the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11 under section 73(1) and 83(2) of the Act for which the assessee had also submitted reply dated 30th September, 2011. Furthermore, an inquiry was conducted wherein the statement of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company was recorded on 8th October, 2011. The Tribunal after considering the factual position held that the taxable value has been arrived at as per the sales bill for the relevant years and noted the fact. The appellant's contention was that the main contractor also paid service tax, which was not taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
