2018 (5) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the respondent Per S.K. Mohanty 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29/03/214 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur wherein, Service Tax demand of Rs. 94,00,365/- was confirmed along with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Brief facts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant, wherein the above adjudged demand was confirmed. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submits that the proceedings are barred by limitation of time in as much as the period of dispute is from April, 2007 to March, 2012, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 27/09/2012, which is beyond the normal period under Section 73 (1) of the Act. He submits t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the period of dispute, in this case, is from April, 2007 to March, 2012 and the show cause notice was issued on 27/09/2012. For issuance of show cause notice beyond the normal period of one year, the Department has to show that non-payment of Service Tax was due to suppression, fraud, misstatement, etc, with the intent to defrau....