2017 (8) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....revised from 5% ad valorem to 8% vide notification No.04/2003-ST dated 14/05/2003. However, the appellant during the period 14/05/2007 to 28/05/2003 paid the said service tax @ 5% ad valorem only. The demand was confirmed by the lower authorities and the matter reached the Tribunal. However, Tribunal vide its order No.667/10/SMB/C-IV dated 24/11/2010 remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the issue on limitation. The Commissioner reconfirmed the demand upholding the invocation of extended period of limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have come to the Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel argued that the Revenue was aware of the short payment and therefore could not have invoked extended period of li....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts of the appellant on limitation is based on the fact that the Revenue was aware of the short payment in the year 2004 and therefore, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Neminath Fabrics (supra) has examined this issue and observed as under: "24. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) on which reliance has been placed upon by learned advocate for the respondent was rendered in totally different set of facts wherein when the first show cause notice was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. The Court has held that later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar fa....