9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice dated 08.07.2013 was issued to the appellant. This show cause notice dated 08.07.2013 refers to an earlier show cause notice dated 19.10.2011 that was issued to the appellant for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11. It is not is dispute that both the show cause notices contain the same charges and in fact, the impugned order notes in paragraph 37 also that since the demand proposed in the earlier said show cause notice dated 19.10.2011 was confirmed by order dated 28.11.2013, the demand proposed in the present show cause notice also deserves to be confirmed. 3. Shri Vijai Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon a division bench decision of the Tribunal in Russell Interiors Private Limited vs. CG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decorator service clarifies that this is a service being provided by way of advice, consultancy, technical assistance or in any other manner though towards planning, design or beautification of the spaces. At this stage, if we look onto the contract of the appellant with his clients, i.e. CHC Constructions Ltd. The perusal thereof shows that the activity of construction and various affiliated works was to be carried out by the appellant as per the technical specifications given after the approval of the architect of the client of the appellant. This very perusal makes it clear that the appellant was not to provide services as that of design and technical assistance or consultancy. The moment the nature of services as mentioned herein are p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. The Show Cause Notice is dated 19.10.2011. The Department has invoked the extended period of limitation in accordance of proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act. Perusal of the Order under challenge shows that there is no iota of evidence proving any act of suppression on misrepresentation on part of the appellant that too with the intention of evading taxes. On the contrary, it is an acknowledged fact that the appellant has deposited certain amount while discharging his tax liability, considering the same to be the works contract service. In view of above discussion, the activity of appellant since is held to be work contract service, the Department is held to have wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation as there remains no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
