ADITYA VIDYUT APPLIANCES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee is aggrieved by a limited direction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the order dated 30th December, 2015 [2016 (42) S.T.R. 941 (Tribunal)] and its further order dated 23rd May, 2016, refused to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority as prayed by the appellant. In other words, it directed a restricted remand. Secondly, the appellant-assessee is aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal on the point of invocation of the extended period of limitation.

(2.) Bearing in mind the nature of the order and direction, by which the appellant-assessee is aggrieved, we are of the view that the present appeal raises substantial questions of law. We proceed to admit it on the following two substantial questions of law:-

(3.) As far as the third question is concerned, it is common ground that in Para 6.6 of the order under Appeal, the issue of limitation has been discussed by a cryptic finding. Though that appears to be incomplete, with the assistance of Mr. Patil and Ms. Cardozo, we have perused the relevant materials. The Tribunal has taken a view of the issue of limitation and invocation of the extended period by perusing the correspondence. It may have entirely faulted the assessee, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it sustained the demand by invocation of the extended period of limitation. Since the finding is on mixed questions of fact and law and peculiar to the assessee's case, we do deem it proper to disturb it. It cannot be said to be wholly perverse or vitiated to such an extent as would enable us to frame a substantial question of law for admission of this appeal. We clarify that the appeal stands dismissed to the extent of question no. (iii) at Page 16 of the paper book.