TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2319/2014-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NOs 72650-72652/2018 - Dated:- 20-11-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Vineet Kumar Singh (Advocate) for Appellant(s) Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh (Dy. Comr.) AR Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Above stated three appeals are arising out of two impugned Orders-in-Appeal, in respect of the same assessee and on the same subject. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. Appeal No. ST/841/2011-CU[DB] Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was registered with Revenue vide Registration No. AACCA2945BST002 under the category of Cleaning Services . The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the said appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 04.03.2011. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere with the said Order-in-Original dated 17.06.2010. Therefore, appeal is before this Tribunal. Appeal Nos. ST/52793 52319/2014-CU[DB] Brief facts of the case are that the appellant were registered with Registration No. AACCA2945BST002 for Cleaning Services . During the course of scrutiny of Balance Sheet of the appellant for the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10, Revenue noticed that appellant was having gross receipt of ₹ 5,43,04,895/-, 5,42,74,006/-, 5,08,02,857/- and 5,72,45,005/- respectively and whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 29.01.2014 through which he has dropped the demand of service tax of ₹ 29,16,594/- in respect of services rendered to Industrial Toxicology Centre, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research Centre and on amount already included in previous show cause notice dated 28.10.2009. Further he did not interfere with the demand of Service Tax of ₹ 18,65,775/- along with penalty. Aggrieved by that part of the impugned Order-in-Appeal through which demand of Service Tax of ₹ 18,65,775/- was survived appellant preferred appeal before this Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said show cause notice dated 28.10.2009 was not sustainable. He has further submitted that after issue of show cause notice dated 28.10.2009 appellant was again issued with a show cause notice dated 29.09.2011 by invoking proviso for larger period for the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10. He has submitted that the second show cause notice dated 29.09.2011 is not sustainable in view of the ruling by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. reported at 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.). He has further submitted that show cause notice dated 29.09.2011 covered period from 1st April, 2009 to 31st January, 2008 covered by earlier show cause notice dated 28.10.2009. Therefore, show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
