2011 (9) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Ltd. The show cause notice was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide order-in-original dated 28th September 2007, in which the service tax amount of Rs.1,28,230/- along with interest was confirmed on the respondent and penalty under Sections, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was also imposed. Against the said order-in-original, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order-in-appeal dated 21st February 2008 remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority to reconsider the issues raised by the appellant and to pass a speaking order. Following the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 30.4.2009 confirmed the tax d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in April 2006 and Show Cause Notice issued on 23.03.2007, therefore, from April 2006 onwards only the normal period of one year is available to issue demand notice.   The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not accepted by the department and the Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order requesting that the case may be remanded back to the original authority for de novo adjudication.   3. The learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the grounds on which the appeal has been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) have already been taken care of by the original authority in the light of the earlier remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and on some points the matter can be sent t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... provided by the respondent was more than Rs.4 lakhs during the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 and as a result, the assessee was not entitled for small scale exemption of Rs.4 lakhs during the period. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not appreciated that there were some disputed service activities for which the entire demand of service cannot be set aside particularly when the respondent has accepted the facts of providing maintenance and repairs services representing the lower taxable value. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded back to the original authority for examining all these service activities of the respondent and deciding the matter afresh after examining all the points raised by the....