2019 (4) TMI 932

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. ST/383 of 2012, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- a) Whether the Notification issued by the CBEC dated 10.5.2009 and relied upon by the Tribunal was not clarificatory in nature? b) Whether the impugned order is sustainable in the eyes of law when the Notification pertaining to associated enterprise issued on 10.5.2008 and referred to by the Tribunal was only clarificatory? c) Whether any new liability was created by the above said Notification dated 10.5.2008 on account of Associated Enterprise? d) Whether the Tribunal could set aside the whole demand when the d....

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 Act and penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Act against the respondent. However, the demand of Rs. 7,53,709/- for the period from 1.4.2005 to 17.4.2006 was dropped. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 5.4.2017 (Annexure A-3) allowed the appeal and set aside the demands raised by the department. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book. 4. There is an overlap in the periods in the show cause notices. The first show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 17.8.2007 invoking the extended period of five years on the basis of commission paid to the OCA on account of export....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....09, the extended period could not have been invoked in the third show cause and the same is barred by time. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "7. We also note that the notification pertaining to associated enterprises was issued on 10.5.2008 and the entire period in the present show cause notice dt. 21.04.2009 is prior to that date. In that background, the Department had no support in law to issue such a show cause notice alleging transaction between associated enterprises. We, therefore, hold that the show cause notice dt. 21.04.2009 could not invoke the allegation of associated enterprises when the law at the time did not provide for the same and the relevant provision was introduced on 10.05.2008, withou....