2016 (1) TMI 846

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, AR PER: R.K.SINGH The Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.1.2009 which set aside the Order-in-Original dated 29.5.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs. 5,82,025/- alongwith interest was confirmed under Business Auxiliary Service and penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) held ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of the impugned service under BAS as the issue is now settled by CESTAT vide its judgment in case of Sanfin (Supra). He however raised the issue of time bar. There was no wilful mis-statement or suppression and therefore demand is time barred he argued. There was confusion regarding classification as is evident from the judgement in the case of Wings Group of Companies vs. CST, Bangalore-2008 (1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Tri.-Kolkata). Learned Counsel for the respondent does not contest classification of the service under BAS in the wake of judgment of CESTAT in case of Sanfin (Supra). However, he has pleaded that in view of the fact that there was confusion about classification extended period can not be invoked. As regards the issue of time bar, it is a combined question of law and fact. We find that the respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case of Wings Group of Companies (Supra) as the judgment was reported in 2008 while period involved in this case is 1.7.2003 to 30.09.2004. However, it has been held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pannu Property Dealers -2011 (24) STR 0173 (P & H), and First Flight Couriers 2011 (22) STR 22 (P&H) that even if technically penalties under sections 76 and 78 were not mutually exclusiv....