TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice. The demand raised in the SCN dated 19/10/2012, on the same grounds as the earlier SCN dated 07/04/2010 has to be restricted to the normal time limit. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision on merit for the period falling within the normal time limit - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/54462/2014-DB - Final Order No. 51058/2018 - Dated:- 22-3-2018 - Hon ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Dharmendra Kumar Rana, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ranjan Khanna, Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the respondent ORDER Per : V. Padmanabhan 1. The appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. 169/2013-14 dated 21/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments advanced by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant are summarized below:- i. For the earlier period i.e 2004-05 to 2008-09, the Department had raised demands for Service Tax by issue of earlier show cause notice dated 07/04/2010. The issues raised in the earlier show cause notice are identical to those dealt with in the present proceedings. ii. The second show cause notice dated 18/10/2012 has also invoked the suppression clause for raising demand under the longer period under Proviso to Section 73 ibid. The department is not justified in invoking the suppression clause in the subsequent show cause notice in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory reported in 2008 (09) STR 314 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the record. 7. The present proceedings stand initiated with issue of show cause notice dated 19/10/2012, covering the period of demand 2009-10 and 2010-11. It is seen from record that the earlier show cause notice dated 07/04/2010 was issued invoking the suppression clause under Section 73 of the Act covering the period 2004-05 to 2008-09. We have perused a copy of the earlier show cause notice, order-in-original as well as compared the same with current show cause notice and impugned order. 8. We note that the crux of the issue raised in the present proceedings is no different from that in the earlier proceedings. All the issues remain the same. Even the respective contracts, received by the appellant were from the same organizat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, we fail to see any specific evidence brought forth by Revenue indicating any positive act of suppression on the part of the appellant. On account of this reason also, we hold that the demand in the present case is to be restricted to that falling within the normal time limit. 12. In view of the above discussion we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision on merit for the period falling within the normal time limit. The appellant will have the liberty to argue the case on merit, especially in view of the submissions by the Ld. Advocate that the demands stand dropped for the earlier as well as subsequent periods. 13. In view of the above, appeal is allowed by way of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
