TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3/2011 dated 31.01.2011. Vide M/S. ADARSH DEVELOPERS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX BANGALORE SERVICE TAX- I, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BANGALORE NORTH [ 2018 (8) TMI 1009 - CESTAT BANGALORE ], the Appellate Tribunal decided in favour of the Respondent/Assessee and held the Respondent was not required to pay service tax for construction service before 01.07.2010. The appellant has failed in demonstrating that the said finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to any specific material on record. The Appellate Tribunal has considered the aspect of suppression from the proper perspective and noticing the settled position of law, has rightly held that the aspect of suppression cannot be attributed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable interest on the service tax payable for the said periods. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, by its final order dated 29.11.2019 passed the following order: i) Demand under Construction of Residential Complex is held to be time-barred. Demand in respect of Construction of Villas is set aside. ii) Demand under Construction of Residential Complex on construction of complexes other than Villas is sustained for the period of 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and remanded back to the original authority for re-quantification in terms of the discussion. iii) Demand under Consulting Engineer s Service has been accepted by the appellants. iv) Penalty imposed under Section 78 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Cherian Punnoose for the Assessee, justifies the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and submits that the case of suppression has been rightly appreciated by the Appellate Tribunal and the above appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The substantial question of law that has been framed by this Court is regard to the aspect of suppression by the Assessee. 8. Considering the aspect of suppression the Appellate Tribunal has noticed that the assessee was issued with show cause notice dated 02.07.2007 for the period 16.06.2005 to 31.12.2006. The said show cause notice was confirmed by order in original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued another show cause notice to the appellants which came to be confirmed by Order-in-Original Sl. No. 3/2011 dated 31.01.2011; this bench, vide Final Order No. 20942-20943/2018 dated 04.07.2018/10.07.2018, decided in favour of the appellants and held that the appellants were not required to pay any service tax for the construction services before 01.07.2010. Department was well award of the activities and transactions while issuing the first show cause notice itself. Therefore, no suppression could be held against the appellants and invoked while raising demand for the subsequent periods. We find that extended period cannot be invoked in subsequent SCN, more so, when the first SCN itself was issued invoking extended period. We rely on Niz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
