Page 144 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

62 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
the appellant were towards making good the damages, losses or injuries arising
from “unintended” events and does not emanate from any obligation on the part
of any of the parties to tolerate an act or a situation and cannot be considered to
be the payments for any services.
5. In view of the foregoing, we find no reasons to uphold the impugned
orders. Inasmuch as the appeal stands allowed on merits, the plea of limitation is
not being adverted to.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 26-11-2019)

_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 62 (Tri. - Kolkata)

IN THE CESTAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T) and P. Dinesha, Member (J)
TATA STEEL LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., JAMSHEDPUR
Final Order No. 76176/KOL/2019, dated 29-8-2019 in Appeal No. ST/372/2011
Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Failure by assessee to prove
that it was case of ‘Self Service’ - Revenue clearly establishing that it was ser-
vice for which payment made to service provider by service recipient - Reve-
nue coming to know of these facts on checking of records and not from inde-
pendent source - However, not case of suppression with intention to evade tax
- Demand cannot be raised beyond of normal period - No specific allegation of
suppression, fraud, etc. to justify invoking larger period of limitation - De-
mand only in normal period of limitation alone can be sustained - Matter re-
manded to Adjudicating Authority for working out for liability, if any, for
normal period alone - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 5, 6]
Matter remanded
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Parker Markwel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
— 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 42 (Tribunal) — Relied on ......................................................................... [Para 3]
General Manager, BSNL Cellular Mobile Services v. Commissioner
— 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 238 (Tribunal) — Relied on ....................................................................... [Para 3]
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2007 (8) S.T.R. 527 (Tribunal) — Relied on ....... [Para 3]
Precot Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (2) S.T.R. 495 (Tribunal) — Relied on ........................... [Para 3]
Sahara India Commercial Corporation v. Commissioner
— 2019 (21) G.S.T.L. 170 (Tribunal) — Relied on ....................................................................... [Para 3]
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2008 (228) E.L.T. 124 (Tribunal) — Relied on ... [Para 3]
Tata Steel Ltd.(Growth Shop) v. Commissioner — 2014 (35) S.T.R. 374 (Tribunal) — Relied on .. [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate and Shri
Abhijit Biswas, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri A. Roy, AR, for the Respondent.

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  144