9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd, Ludhiana conducted by the department during the month of May 2014, it was found that M/s Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd was acting as a Multi System Operators (MSO) who transmitted/transferred the signals to the cable operators referred to as Local Cable Operators (LCOs), who further transmitted the signals to subscribers and was receiving their share of the subscription amount from the LCOs. On that acting on the above findings revealed during the audit of M/s Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd, investigation was initiated into the amounts received by the LCOs on which servicer tax was not paid. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 12.05.2016 was issued to the appellant proposing service tax demand of Rs.75,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls. 6. Further, I find that the period involved in the present case is April 2014 to September 2014 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 12.05.2016 on the basis of audit conducted at the end of M/s Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd. The appellant has stated in the grounds of appeal that they have filed the service tax returns, ITR, Form 26AS, Profit & Loss Account and other statutory records to the department, therefore, suppression and fraud as alleged by the department is not sustainable. In this regard, the appellant has relied on the following decisions passed by this Tribunal: * M/s Blue Star Communication & others vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana - 2019 (2) TMI 1385 CESTAT CHANDIGARH * M/s Super Star Cable Network vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability". 9. Keeping in view the ratio of the various decisions and the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the invocation of extended period of limitation is not justified in the present case and therefore I hold that the entire demand is barred by limitation. Since I allow the appeal on limitation only, therefore, I am not going into the merits of the controversy as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. B.V. Jewels - 2004 (172) ELT 3 (SC). In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the appellant is allowed only on limitation. (Opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
