9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g extended period when the demand was for the period 2007-08 to 2009-10. The respondent replied to the said show cause notice. Subsequently, the revenue authorities issued second show cause notice dt. 11.04.2012 demanding service tax from the appellant for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 by invoking the extended period and also alleging that the respondent was recipient of services hence liable to discharge service tax under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. The respondent contested the show cause notice on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, held that on merits, the respondent has no case to confirm the payments made for half year from the date of issuance of show cause notice along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from service provider situated abroad. It is his further submission that the case which was adjudicated would be correct as in those cases, show cause notices were of distinct and different set of facts invoking extended period of limitation. 4. The Ld. Counsel draws my attention to the findings of the adjudicating authority, more particularly para 18 0f Order-in-Original. It is his submission that once extended period is invoked in first show cause notice, the second show cause notice cannot invoke the extended period in the law. There are no new facts that arose for invoking extended period. It is also his submission that the issue which has been raised in the second show cause notice dt. 11.04.2012 is the same as in the first notice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .04.2016 (supra), which is reproduced: "I have gone through the copy of the show cause notice issued vide O.R.No. 02/2011 Adjn (ST) ADC dated 05.01.2011, issued by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. The issue involved was non payment of service tax by BDL in Technical Services rendered to Indian Navy, treating the same as an output service of BDL and on Commercial Training Courses for the period 2007-08 to 2009-10, wherein proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was extended for demanding service tax for extended period. Once again the Department had issued the subject notice vide O.R. No.64/2012-Adjn (ST) (Commr) dt. 11.04.2012 demanding service tax under Technical, Inspection and Certification Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y/ transaction and hence, I find that the demand proposed in the subject notice has to be restricted to normal period and the demand of service tax for the period beyond the normal period was hit by limitation of time and is liable to be dropped." 9. While recording above findings, the first appellate authority has correctly relied upon the judgment of the cases in Hyderabad Polymers (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2004 (166) E.L.T 151 (SC)], Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of CE, AP [2006 (197) E.L.T 465(SC) and various other Tribunal decisions on similar set of facts. 10. In view of foregoing as also in the factual circumstances of the case, I find that the appeal is devoid of merits to the extent it challenges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
