2016 (9) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te for the Appellants Shri K Poddar,  AR for the Respondent ORDER After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Sudhir Malhotra,  learned advocate appearing for the appellant  and Shri  K Poddar, learned AR  appearing for the Revenue,  we find that the appellants, during the period relevant for the purpose of present appeal i.e. March, 2006 to September, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on.   Accordingly, demand to the extent of Rs. 12,18,362/- was confirmed along with confirmation  of interest and imposition of penalties, by invoking the longer period of limitation. 3.   After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we note that in terms of Sl.No.7 of notification No. 1/2006, abatement benefit is not available to the 'completion and finis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bility to service tax would arise for the period prior to 1.6.2007. 4.  If there was no service tax liability, even though, the appellant had discharged Service tax  on 33% of the value of services, the demand  for differential duty cannot be confirmed on the said ground. 5.  In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand   the  &nbsp....