TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 73 of Finance Act, 1994. An appeal against this order of the Tribunal, though admitted, is, as yet, pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The demand for October 2003 to September 2008 has been, thus, curtailed and the present demand leading to the impugned order relates to the period thereafter till 2012 for which show-cause notice was issued on 15th April 2014. This appeal of Revenue seeking recovery as proposed in the demand by invoking of the extended period for subsequent period of time is not correct in law - the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 85892 of 2016 - A/86238/2022 - Dated:- 22-12-2022 - Mr C J Mathew, Member (Technical) AND Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Shri Nitin M. Tagade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nabling the invoking of extended period. 5. We must state, at the outset and in no uncertain terms, that while lack of knowledge could be a defence in such proceedings, it is not the knowledge or awareness that is on trial but the suppression of fact/wilful misstatement/ fraud which must be evinced in the notice issued in pursuance of section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Mere nonpayment of tax or non-discharge of the liability does not suffice to alienate the responsibility of the proper officer to offer convincing reasons for the belief that the ingredients for invoking extended period are evident. We see from the records that show-cause notice for the period from October 2003 to September 2008 dated 6th April 2009 on the same issue had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It was observed in para 14 as follows : 14. We have indicated above the facts which make it clear that the question whether M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was a related person has been the subject matter of consideration of the Excise authorities at different stages, when the classification was filed, when the first show cause notice was issued in 1985 and also at the stage when the second and the third show cause notices were issued in 1988. At all these stages, the necessary material was before the authorities. They had then taken the view that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. If the authorities came to the conclusion subsequently that it was a related person, the same fact could not be treated as a suppressio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ression or mis-statement and that therefore, the extended period under Section 11A could not be invoked. Similarly, this judgment was again followed in the case of Hyderabad Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in [2004 (166) E.L.T. 151 (S.C.)]. It was observed in para 6: .......... On the ratio laid down in this judgment it must be held that once the earlier Show Cause Notice, on similar issue has been dropped, it can no longer be said that there is any suppression. The extended period of limitation would thus not be available. We are unable to accept the submission that earlier Show Cause Notice was for a subsequent period and/or it cannot be taken into consideration as it is not known when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
