2019 (1) TMI 1437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce tax on enumerated services was replaced by levy of tax in a negative list regime, rendered the legality of the present proceedings to be questionable. 2. The dispute pertains to levy of tax on mobile telephone services rendered by the appellant to their employees which, for the period between 2008-09 and 2011-12, had been determined against the appellant herein by Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai -II in order-in-original no. 62/ST/RM/SCL/M-II/13-14 dated 18th August 2014 following which tax of Rs. 1,30,39,712/-, along with interest thereon, and penalty under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 on service rendered from April 2013 to March 2014 was held to be recoverable under section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 through the device of 'd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orporation of '(IA) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) except the period of thirty months of serving the notice for recovery of service tax), the Central Excise Officer may serve, subsequent to any notice or notices served under that sub-section a statement, containing the details of service tax not levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded for the subsequent period, on the person chargeable to service tax, then, service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person, subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon for the subsequent period are same as are mentioned in the earlier notices.' was intended to avoid superfluous repetition of proceedings in the circ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... behalf of the appellant crystalised the tax liability. In the present dispute it appears that the bills are raised in the name of the appellant themselves. For the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 to be applicable, service as defined in section 65B(44) therein must necessarily be transacted; such service can only between two separate persons and a bill raised on oneself does not meet that requirement. Consequently, there is no service and no taxability, 9. The tax regime had altered since period covered by the order relied upon in the present 'demand-cum-penalty notice' and the impugned order goes beyond mere reference to the earlier order to adjudicate, without notice and opportunity, the applicability in the transformed tax r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X