TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed that a portion of it is covered by the earlier show cause notice dated 18.04.2016. This mater would also, therefore, have to be remitted to the Commissioner to examine this aspect afresh - matter remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine both the issues relating to the applicability of the extended period of limitation as also the overlapping of period. Appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 70473 of 2020-DB - FINAL ORDER No. 70136/2022 - Dated:- 17-8-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B.K. Jain, Authorized Representative of the Department ORDER The order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the appellant submitted that the extended period of limitation, as contemplated under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case, except for the period between October 2014 to March 2015 which is within the normal period of limitation and, therefore, the demand of service tax for the extended period of limitation should be set aside. Learned counsel also pointed out that even for the demand made for the normal period of limitation, there is overlapping of period with the period covered by the earlier show cause notice dated 18.04.2016. 6. Shri B.K. Jain, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department submitted that the extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the extended period of limitation has been invoked for the period covered from S. No s. 1 to 5 and it is only the period covered by S. No. 6 that is within the normal period of limitation contemplated under section 73(1) of the Finance Act. 9. Learned counsel also pointed out that the normal period of limitation under section 73(1) of the Finance Act would be as follows:- Upto 27.05.2012 12 months 28.05.2012 to 13.05.2016 18 months 14.05.2016 to 30.06.2017 30 months 10. It is, therefore, clear that the period covered by S. No s. 1 to 5 is bey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. As is obviously evident, this willful suppression on the part of the said party was with their sole intention to contravene the said relevant provisions of the said Rules and the Act with intent to evade payment of service tax and accordingly the provisions of extended period of time limitation appears to be appropriately invoked in the instant case. (emphasis supplied) 12. This aspect has been dealt with by the Additional Commissioner in the order dated 16.07.2019 in the following manner:- 18. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the party has short paid service tax of Rs. 1,58,43,075/- and the same is liable to be recovered as per the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The party is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
