2025 (11) TMI 1550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of bulletproof morchas, bomb disposal baskets, bulletproof patkas and fabrication of bulletproof truck bodies. The appellant also undertakes the activity of bullet proofing various types of vehicles by fitting bulletproof steel sheets, bulletproof glass and other protective materials within the vehicle body. The department entertained the view that the activity of bullet proofing of vehicles is more appropriately classifiable under 'Business Auxiliary Service' as defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act; whereas the appellant has discharged the service tax on the said activity und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE & Cus. vs. M/s Larsen & Toubro and Others [2015 (8) TMI 749 Supreme Court]. She also submits that as per the appellant, the department has not filed any appeal against the said decision of the Tribunal, hence, the findings of the Tribunal have attained finality and therefore, the impugned order in the present case is liable to be set aside. 4.1 She further submits that the activity of bullet proofing by way of erection, commissioning and installation of bulletproof steel & glass sheets in vehicles, undertaken by the appellant, involves both transfer of property in goods and provision of service, therefore, the said activity clearly qualif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cause notice and Order-in-Original, which is not permissible as held in the following cases: • M/s Bridgeview Broadband Network P Ltd vs. CCE & CGST, Shimla - 2025 (5) TMI 1994 CESTAT Chandigarh • M/s Parwindra Enterprises vs. CST, Chandigarh-II - 2025 (2) TMI 590 CESTAT Chandigarh 4.4 As regards the invocation of extended period of limitation, the learned Counsel submits that a part of the demand is beyond the period of limitation because the appellant was regularly filing their ST-3 returns and has not suppressed any material fact from the department, therefore, invocation of extended period of limitation is not sustainable. She also submits that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for proceedings ....