2016 (7) TMI 726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal is filed by revenue challenging the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the demand, interest and penalty. 2. The respondents are registered under the category of "Banking and other Financial Service' for providing taxable service and they paid excess tax to the tune of Rs. 16,41,790/- during the months of June, 07 to August, 07. Subsequently in the months of January....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Finance Act 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposed penalty of Rs. 13,41,790/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The appellant preferred appeal against the above order and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Hence the revenue is before the Tribunal. It would be worth while to reproduce the relevant para ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... information with regard to adjustment of excess payment of service tax was known to the department for a period of more than one year, I therefore hold that suppression of facts etc. cannot be established and the demand invoking extended period is not sustainable as the same is hit by limitation of time and I find force in the contention of the appellants. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rel....