2025-VIL-2068-CESTAT-ALH-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax – Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 – Invoking of extended period of limitation – Demand of tax – Appellant is engaged in providing various taxable services – After scrutiny of documents, department viewed that Appellant had short paid service tax – Department issued show cause notice proposing demand of short paid service tax by invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act – Adjudicating authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Adjudicating authority – Whether impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable – HELD – In present proceedings, Appellant have not stated that findings recorded in impugned order on issue of limitation are erroneous. Main contention of Appellant is that Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly distinguished the decisions quoted by them. Appellant had not challenged impugned order stating any other ground. Impugned order clearly distinguishes the decisions that Appellant relied in appellate proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals). Appellant in his submissions had just placed on record certain decisions of this bench even without stating the facts and showing how these decisions are applicable in their case. Such blind reliance on some decisions without showing their applicability to facts in hand do not help case of Appellant. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is sustained – Appeal dismissed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page