2018 (3) TMI 1247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthorized Representative (DR) - for the appellant.   Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, Advocate - for the Respondent.   Per. B. Ravichandran :-   The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 27/02/2013 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. By the impugned order, the Commissioner dropped the demand against the respondent for the period upto 15/06/2005. He also held that the proceedings ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the case, intimation by the respondent and various correspondence thereafter the impugned order held that no allegation of suppression, willful mis-statement cannot be sustained against the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.   2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. The grievance of the Revenue is that there is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion, we find no reason to vary the finding. The Revenue also did not come with any material facts to support such course of action.   4. Regarding limitation, we note that the impugned order elaborately examined the facts of the case. We note that the enquiry against the respondent started on 29/09/2004 by summon proceedings. The respondent obtained registration for service tax on 02/11/2....