2016 (11) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp;  for the Appellants Shri.  Vishal Agarwal, Advocate with Roshil Nichani, Advocate  for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in the present case is  demand of service tax on the services of financing, merger and acquisition  under the head of Management Consultancy Services. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand on the ground of limitation for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ld. Asst. Commissioner(A.R.)  appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal, submits that  Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has dropped the demand on ground of limitation whereas as per the provisions of Section 73(a) existed before 10-9-2000 without suppression of fact also demand  could have been issued for  longer period therefore  the Commissioner(Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s issued on 10/4/2006 when the provisions of Section 73(a)  of Finance Act was not existing whereas  amended Section 73 after 10/9/2000 was existing, according to which  only if there is suppression of fact, the demand for more than one year can be issued.  In the present case admittedly there is no suppression of fact on the part of the respondent.  Therefore the demand i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resent case the show cause notice  was issued on 10/4/2006 invoking extended period.  At the time of issuance of show cause notice, unamended provisions of Section 73(a) existed prior to 10/9/2000 was not existing, therefore unamended Section 73(a) is not invokable  in the present case.  If this is so then the appeal of the Revenue which solely on the basis of this ground does ....