TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow-cause notice dt. 08/12/2005 is correctly invoking the extended period for demand of tax. The second show-cause notice dt. 08/12/2005 is issued for the period subsequent to the period which was in question in show-cause notice dt. 08/10/2002. It transpires from record that there is no overlapping of the demand in order to claim the relief by the respondent. Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/163/2008-DB - A/30898/2017 - Dated:- 20-6-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri J. S. Chakrapani, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant Shri P. Ramakrishna, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER [Order Per: Madhu Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-2005 for earlier period. As laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in various cases like Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CE., Delhi [2005(189) ELT 257 (SC)], Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006(197) ELT 465 (SC)], once a show-cause notice is issued, suppression cannot be alleged on same / similar facts. After the issue had been the subject matter of one adjudication, it cannot be validly stated that the appellants suppressed the facts namely non-payment of service tax on rendering air travel agent service. I find merit in the submission of the appellants on this point and the appellants succeed on the ground of time bar. However, it is clarified that the demand which is within the normal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service tax liability. Hence show-cause notice dt. 08/12/2005 issued by invoking extended period is correctly set aside by the first appellate authority. He produced copy of the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Nizam Sugar Factory and Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt. Ltd. [2017(47) STR 129 (Tri. Mumbai)]. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the first appellate authority has erred in coming to a conclusion that the show-cause notice dt. 08/12/2005 issued for the demand of differential demand of tax / short payment of tax for the period July, 2001 to March 2005 is hit by limitation for m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellate authority and the learned counsel, it is noticed that in the said case of Pahwa Chemicals, the appellant therein was filing the returns regularly with the Range Officers, which has been considered by the apex court for setting aside the demand raised by invoking extended period. Reliance placed on Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt. Ltd. is also misplaced as in that case the Bench has clearly recorded that there was a confusion in the mind of the appellant therein and it was brought to the knowledge of the Bench that earlier show-cause notice issued was not adjudicated and also in that case, second show-cause notice was issued after adjudication in first show-cause notice. The facts of this case in hand are totally d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
