TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalties set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No. 3508 of 2012 - Final Order No. 52669/2017 - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - Hon ble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Ranjan Khanna, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the appellant None - for the Respondent ORDER Per. S. K. Mohanty The Revenue is in appeal against order dated 13/09/2012 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in providing taxable service under the category of outdoor catering covered by the provisions of Section 65 (76a) readwith Section 65 (24) and 65 (105) (zzt) of the Finance Act, 1994. Proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to decide the case based on the submissions made by the learned AR and the appeal records. 4. On the first issue regarding sustainability of demand for service tax for the extended period in terms of proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act, we note that the impugned order examined the issue in detail. We also note that after enquiry about nonpayment of service tax, earlier also proceedings were initiated against the respondent by way of show cause notice dated 18/05/2007 covering the period 10/09/2004 to 31/10/2006. The proceedings concluded by an order dated 08/10/2007. The present proceedings covered period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 (upto September 2009) by issue of second show cause notice dated 05/08/2010. The impugned order recorded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above documents/information the department has raised a demand of service tax for the period March 2006 to October 2006, amounting to ₹ 1,61,801/- which also paid by the appellant, I find that in the present matter under consideration demand related to the year 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 (upto September 2009), however, since the appellant had produced all desired documents earlier and on the basis of these documents demand for period upto October, 2006 was already raised through show cause notice dated 18/05/2007, hence demand in the present subsequent for same period is repetition of demand, which cannot be permitted. Accordingly, such demand for period upto October 2006, is not sustainable and liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. We note that the reliance placed on the decisions in Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) is appropriate and relevant. In the said case, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that while issuing second and third show cause notices based on same/similar facts, the allegation of suppression of fact on the part of the assessee cannot be invoked as the material facts are already in the knowledge of the authorities. The Revenue contended that the respondent failed to take timely registration and also did not file the periodical returns. Hence, the details were collected for issue second show cause notice. We are not in agreement with the contention of the Revenue on the legal position. As recorded in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
