2025 (6) TMI 2064

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amita Gupta, Authorized Representative ASHOK JINDAL: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are the appellant is engaged in providing the architect services and registered with the Service Tax Department and filing their regular ST-3 returns showing that the turnover is zero. The data was shared with Income Tax....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... consultant appearing for the appellant that the penalty in these circumstances cannot be imposed. He also relied on the decision of M/s Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST (West), CESTAT, Delhi vide Final Order No. 59511-59720/2024 dated 25.11.2024 to say that as adjudication has done on 29.04.2022 whereas show cause notice has been issued on 30.12.2020, therefore, the adjudication....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2025 wherein the issue was taken up by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the adjudication order was passed after one year of the issuance of the show cause notice in central excise and service tax cases is bad in law or not has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that circumstances, the decision in the case of M/s Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), is not applicable to the facts of the case. ....