2017 (2) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent ORDER The facts of the case are that in the course of audit accounts of the appellant, it was noticed that service tax of Rs. 11,20,021/- on GTA for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 has been paid belatedly by them on 5.9.2009, however, interest thereon was not discharged.  SCN dt. 31.1.2014 was issued proposing demand of interest liability amounting to Rs. 2,86,023/- which was confi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to service tax and the controversy which persisted on working of liability by way of reverse charge. Nonetheless, nothing prevented the department from demanding interest liability proximate to the aforesaid letters. Only in the subsequent audit, this aspect was pointed out by department in 2010, even though show cause notice was issued only on 31.1.2014.   Ld. Advocate submitted that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her hand, Ld. A.R, Shri Jude Joseph reiterates the correctness of the impugned order and also points out that even the payment made by appellant in September 2009 was only subsequent to letter dt. 25.6.2009 of the department.  He also submits that for the purpose of interest liability, limitation would not apply. 5.  Heard both sides and gone through facts of the case.  It is not....