2018 (1) TMI 1132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by Shri Sanjay Jain, AR for the respondent. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, upholding the adjudged demand confirmed against the appellant. In this case, the appellant is engaged in the activities of providing Multi-level Marketing services for the consumer goods belonging to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 should be extended, for non-imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that in the case of appellant's own case, for the earlier period, this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 27.06.2013 has confirmed the penalties on the ground tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otice issued on 21.08.2008 for the period from 19.09.2004 to 10.08.2008 is partly barred by limitation of time. With regard to the submissions of the ld. AR that in the case of the appellant itself, this Tribunal has confirmed penalties, we find that the decision referred to and relied upon by the ld. AR was rendered on 27.06.2013; whereas considering the said decision, the Tribunal in the case of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainable under law. Therefore, the demand should be confined to the normal period. Since the Adjudicating Authority had not quantified the service tax liability, payable by the appellant within the normal period, we remand the matter back to the Original Authority for computation of the service tax liability within the normal period. 6. In view of the fact that there were confusions with regard ....