TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uppressed, which fact has been conveniently ignored by the lower authority. Hence, on this ground alone, it becomes very difficult to sustain the demand invoking the extended period of limitation. The demand in the impugned order cannot sustain, for which reason the same is set aside - Appeal allowed. - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri V. Ravindran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Assistant Commissioner for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Original No. 47/2014 (C) dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry and the period of dispute is from 2007-08 (October to March) to 2011-12. 2.1 By the Show Cause Notice No. 22/2013 (C) dated 11.04.2013 issued to the assessee which culminated in the passing of the impugned order, it is the case of the Revenue that the assessee-appellant is a registered service provider under: (a) maintenance and repair service, (b) manpower recruitment service and (c) commercial or industrial construction service, they had also provided erection, commissioning and maintenance services to M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there is absolutely no reference to the second audit carried out in 2012. (g) The Show cause Notice dated 11.04.2013 is not referring to or relying on any specific document allegedly collected from the Income Tax department and nor did the Department share with them any of the so-called documents collected from the Income Tax department. (h) With regard to the allegations of non-furnishing of information, non-responding to the Department s several communications, the very fact of: (i) conduct of audit of accounts, (ii) existence of earlier Show Cause Notice for 2007-08 to 2008-09, (iii) declared values as per S.T.-3 return, and (iv) balance sheets, having been produced, clearly proves that the above allegations are baseless. (i) With regard to the allegations of non-reconciliation, the statement showing year-wise breakup for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 were already filed along with a chartered accountant s certificate, which does not find any reference in the Show Cause Notice. (j) With regard to the allegations of non-submission of S.T.-3 returns for 2009-10 to 2011-12, copy of each of the S.T.-3 returns filed by them were duly enclosed. (k) In the stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whatsoever to invoke the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the demand is also time-barred. 4. The assessee-appellant, having participated in the personal hearing, also appears to have filed a written submission dated 11.02.2014 reiterating its defence, with a prayer for dropping of further proceedings. 5. The adjudicating authority, however, having considered their explanation, vide impugned Order-in-Original dated 30.06.2014, confirmed the demand of Service Tax by observing that the assessee-appellant did not dispute the rendering of various taxable services, had received Rs.20,57,17,763/- as taxable value for providing taxable services which attracted Service Tax of Rs.2,30,30,794/- and the balance was recoverable under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act. Further, with regard to the allegation that the burden of classification of taxable services allegedly rendered by the appellant has not been rendered by the Revenue, the lower authority has held that when relevant information required for classification of service under respective categories were not furnished, the appellant cannot throw the bur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has proposed and confirmed the impugned demand without specifying any of the services rendered by the appellant. The Ld. Advocate would contend that the appellant has, through its reply, countered and proved all such allegations as baseless and in this context, he would refer to an order of this Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Pondicherry v. A.M. Manickam Ors. [2017 (6) TMI 57 CESTAT, Chennai] (Final Order Nos. 40816-40860 of 2017 dated 29.05.2017 in Service Tax Appeal No. 189 of 2010 ors.) wherein, under an identical factual matrix, this Bench has held that the Show Cause Notice being bereft of clarity, not conveying exact nature of the alleged act or omission, any demand arising therefrom was not sustainable. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner relied on the findings in the impugned order. 11. We have considered the rival contentions and we have gone through the documents/orders referred to during the course of arguments and we find that the only issue to be decided by us is: whether the demand confirmed in the impugned order is sustainable in law? 12.1 A perusal of the Show Cause Notice makes it clear, and admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The demand in the impugned order, therefore, cannot sustain in the light of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 13.2 We have also carefully considered the order of this Bench in the case of A.M. Manickam (supra). Brief facts as recorded at paragraph 2 therein read as under: - 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land belonging to large number of people was acquired for Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (NLC) a mining project. As a compensation package to those persons whose lands were acquired prior to 2004, the NLC initially gave employment to one of the family members whose lands were thus acquired. When there was no further scope to give employment, NLC decided to award minor contracts to the members of the families to promote themselves as entrepreneurs. Thus the respondents/assessees were awarded various contracts from the year 2003 onwards by NLC. During the year 2006, Service Tax Department made elaborate meetings with the officials of NLC and collected details of the contracts awarded by NLC, on the premise that the respondents who were awarded the contracts were rendering taxable services. In 2006, most of the assesses obtained service tax registra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not convey the exact nature of the alleged act or omission or any other infraction that has resulted in differential tax liability, the assessees will then find themselves helpless and unable to see any light of the end of the dispute tunnel. 5.15 Such short comings and deficiencies in the show cause notices are uncurable defects which will inevitably cast a shadow on the proceedings that have emanated from it. 5.16 In the result, the demands of tax that may have been resultant of these proceedings will fail, ab initio. This Bench has also relied upon various judicial pronouncements to arrive at the above conclusion. 13.4 We find that the factual matrices of the present appeal and the case of A.M. Manickam (supra) are similar and hence, we are unable to take an inconsistent stand different from the one which was already taken by a co-ordinate Bench. 14. Having regard to the above discussions and agreeing with the conclusion drawn by the co-ordinate Bench, we are of the view that the demand in the impugned order cannot sustain, for which reason the same is set aside. 15. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
