TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for non-payment of tax. The demand is possible only for the normal period. The Show Cause Notice in this case having been issued on 08.05.2014, the demand proposed and confirmed for the period prior to October 2009, is barred by limitation. It is deemed proper to set aside the above demand by agreeing with the contentions of the Learned Consultant for the appellant that the same is hit by limitation - demand for the normal period upheld - matter remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority to the limited extent of working out the demand for the normal period. Penalty under Section 78 and penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The Revenue has not made out any case of fraud, suppression, etc., and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from overseas companies but had not remitted Service Tax. It appears that there were several queries and replies, which finally resulted in issuing the Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2011. 2.1 It has been highlighted in the Show Cause Notice that the Revenue had scrutinized the documents furnished by the appellant, including Schedules to the individual Annual Reports for the years 2005-06 to 2009-10. There was also a verification of the agreements with various parties who are located outside India, wherein it is said to have been noticed that the appellant had engaged various individual professors and students for carrying out the work of language translation from Chinese to other desired languages. It further transpires that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant would be entitled to avail credit of the same, which invariably leads to a revenue neutral situation. Thus, there is no scope to allege fraud, suppression, etc., to invoke the extended period of limitation for non-payment of tax. 5.2 Viewed thus, the demand is possible only for the normal period. The Show Cause Notice in this case having been issued on 08.05.2014, the demand proposed and confirmed for the period prior to October 2009, is barred by limitation. 6. In view of the above, we deem it proper to set aside the above demand by agreeing with the contentions of the Learned Consultant for the appellant that the same is hit by limitation. However, we uphold the demand for the normal period. Consequently, we are reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
