2014 (6) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., J. For the Appellant : Shri O.P. Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. S Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both sides, I find that the demand of Rs. 1,02,937/- stand confirmed against the appellant on the ground that during the period 8.7.04 to 3.2.05, they have provided rent-a-cab services and outdoor catering services without keeping themselves register....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Revenue. 3. Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the said order of the adjudicating authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence the present appeal. 4. Admittedly, the show cause notice issued on 26.4.2006 pertaining to the period 8.7.04 to 3.2.2005 is barred by normal period of limitation. Further, the original adjudicating authority having granted the benefit of section 80....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for eschewing imposition of penalty under Section 78, there was no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation either. Reference is invited to the decision of this Tribunal in Solitz Corporation vs. C.S.T., New Delhi ; 2009 (14) STR 642 (Tri-Del.); to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Pune II - 2013 - TIOL -898 - HC - MUM -ST and ....