TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78. The appeal filed against the Order was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 3. The Ld. Advocate Shri J. Shankarraman appeared for the appellant and Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Rajni Menon appeared for the respondent. Submissions made by the Appellant 3.1 Shri J. Shankarraman, Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows: A. Extended period not invocable Since the demand arose from a CERA audit objection and the issue was within the department's knowledge and kept in the call book, suppression cannot be alleged and the extended period of limitation is not invocable. It is seen from paragraph 21 of the order-in-original that the show cause notice was issued consequent to CERA audit objection and the same was disputed by the Department itself. Once the Department and the appellant are contending that the audit objection is not correct it shows that on merits both were sailing in the same boat. In other words, the Department was supporting the appellant and assailing the audit objection. While so, there is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs.3,57,894/- is not proper. G. Penalty not sustainable The dispute is interpretational, and the appellant claims bona fide belief regarding non-liability. Therefore, penalty under Section 78 is not imposable. H. Case law support He placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions: * Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. v. CCE - 2014 (36) S.T.R. 955 (Tri. Del.) * Samrajyaa & Co. v. CCE - 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 221 The Ld. Counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. Submissions made by the Respondent-Revenue 3.2 Ms. Rajni Menon Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. She submitted as under: A. Regarding job work for manufacturers involving taxable value of Rs. 5,23,250/-, the appellant claimed payment of central excise duty but produced no supporting evidence before either authority. As to the balance value of Rs. 5,06,700/-, it is admitted that the activity did not amount to manufacture; hence, in the absence of any exemption prior to 01.03.2005, the service was rightly taxable under Business Auxiliary Service. B. As regards services rendered to NEPC, the appellant furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicial forum, assumes considerable significance and stands on a distinct footing. It is incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to examine the issue whenever it arises from the record; is brought to its notice or is independently perceived by it, even where limitation has not been expressly pleaded as a defence. In Noharlal Verma Vs District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. [(2008) 14 SCC 445 / AIR 2009 SC 664], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of limitation, observed as under: "27. Now, limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation, a Court or an Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits. 28. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under; (3) Bar of limitation.--(1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. 29. Bare reading of the aforesaid provision leaves no ro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice Tax Vs Monsanto Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (35) STR 177 (All.)], among other decisions. Useful reference may also be made to State Bank of India Vs B.S. Agricultural Industries [AIR 2009 SC 2210], Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs B.V. Jewels & Others [AIR 2005 SC 1231], and E.T.A. General Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2016 (44) STR 409 (Mad.)]. In view of the above legal position, we proceed first to examine the preliminary jurisdictional objection of limitation raised in the present appeal. 5. We find that at para 21 of the impugned order the Ld. Original Authority has admitted that the issue arose from a CERA objection and was disputed by the department itself. The relevant para is reproduced below. "It is seen from the records that the show cause notice in the instant case was issued consequent to CERA audit objections and as the issue was disputed by the Department, the same was kept in Call Book. Consequent to the Board Circular F.No.206/02/2010-CX.6 dated 03.02.2010 wherein it was clarified that wherever CERA Audit objections not admitted by the Department and the same is not converted in to SOF/DAP by CERA, the SCN is....