2010 (11) TMI 324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osing the following questions : "[a] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is right in dropping the demand that SCN issued in this case and remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority on the ground that it is barred by limitation even though it is held that the services rendered by the respondent is Management Consultant Services? [b] Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that there is bona fide intention of the respondent for not paying the duty and the respondent has not evaded payment of duty?" 2. The respondent assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Casting and Casting articles falling under Chapter Heading No. 84/73 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he show cause notice. It was also held that the assessee was liable to be registered under the category of "Management Consultancy Services". 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, and partly succeeded. Though on merits the Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee fell under the category of "Management Consultant" and not under the category of "Scientific or Technical Consultancy", on the question regarding invocation of the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee had made detailed submissions in support of its claim that the show cause notice was hit by limitation and hence, the demand was unsustainable. Despite such specific contentions having been raised by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the same in his order. 7. The Tribunal in the impugned order has, while dealing with the contention of the assessee that as the demand of tax for the period 16-10-1998 to December 2001 had been raised on 7-12-2002, the same was barred by limitation for the major period, recorded the following findings : "[8] However, we find force in the appellant's contention that the demand of tax for the period 16-10-98 to December, 2001 having been raised on 7-11-2002, was ....