2019 (1) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....installation, security/ detecting agencies and transport of goods by road. However, they have not paid service tax amounting to Rs. 24,58,554/-. Resultantly, a Show Cause Notice bearing No. 6592 dated 27.06.2016 was issued proposing the said recovery of aforesaid amount of service tax alongwith the interest at appropriate rate and the proportionate penalties. The said proposal was initially confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order No. 2800 dated 28.12.2017. Being aggrieved, an Appeal was preferred before Commissioner(Appeals) who vide Order bearing No. 2784 dated 03.05.2018 has upheld Order of original Adjudicating Authority. Being aggrieved, the Appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. Amrita Ld. Adv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itself. Since it was made beyond the prescribed period, the interest thereupon was also paid on 14.10.2014. It is also apparent that prior to the impugned order the Department has twice earlier conducted the audits of the assesse. Thus, I am of the opinion that the fact had not come to the notice of the Department for the first time. The question of suppression of fact or mis-representation thereof does not arise. Hence, the Department is not entitled to invoke the extended period as mentioned in proviso to Section 73 of the Act. It is also apparent that the impugned Show Cause Notice was issued on 27.06.2016 and period in dispute is 2012-13, i.e. much beyond the normal period of one year. Hence, the same is barred by limitation. Also, no d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....art of appellant to not to discharge his liability. There is no such evidence on record. The case law as relied upon by the adjudicating authority below and impressed upon on behalf of the Department is opined to have been not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that most of the said decisions are prior 2012. Though a decision of 2015 of High Court of Karnataka has also been impressed upon but the perusal thereof makes it clear that the said decision has relied upon the decision of the Order 2009 in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills 2009 (238) E.L.T. (S.C.) and the amendment of Section 80 was not brought to the notice of the Court. The previous adjudications qua the ....