TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- There were two earlier proceedings against the appellant regarding the tax liability as “Commission Agent” under “BAS”. It is now a well settled legal position that repeat show cause notices for subsequent periods cannot be, generally, issued invoking again longer period on the ground of suppression, mis-statement, etc. In the present case, we do not find tenable justification to allege sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aged in providing various services to their clients, which are mainly with eference to procurement of goods, promotion of sale of goods and related activities. The service tax liability against the appellant was confirmed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service . The period involved is 1.4.2004 to 8.7.2004. The show cause notice was issued on 10.05.2007. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and invoices and tax liability has to be examined independently in each case. Ld. Counsel submitted that their overall activities in all the earlier proceedings were sought to be taxed under tax entry Business Auxiliary Service . The present notice is to tax it under different sub-clauses of the tax entry when compared to earlier notices. Except for these differences, the activities of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The demand is contested mainly on the ground of time bar in issuing notice. We find that the notice though mentions the date as 10.05.2006 was signed by the issuing authority on 8.5.2007. Even otherwise, the notice mentions summon dated 29.06.2006 and as such could not have been issued on 10.05.2006. We consider that the date of sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BAS and both the cases were dropped either originally or on remand proceedings. In these circumstances, we find no justification for the subsequent demand by invoking suppression of facts. In this connection, we rely on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory 2008 (9) STR 314 (SC). Accordingly, without examining the merits of the case, we hold that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
