TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/36/2007, S/45 & 61/2007 - 1-3/2009 - Dated:- 30-12-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Final Order Nos. , dated in Appeal Nos. Shri M. Kannan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - M/s. Robot Detective and Security Agency, Hosur (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Robot') are engaged in providing security service and are registered with the Department as a provider of said service from 7-8-2003. Inspection of the records of M/s. Robot revealed that they had rendered security agency service to various customers without fulfilling their statutory obligations including payment of service tax. Three show-cause notices were issued to M/s. Robot proposing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 (M-III) (ST) dated 18-12-2006 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand of service tax, interest and penalty adjudged against M/s. Robot in respect of services rendered to M/s. Srivari Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. As the demands in respect of other two clients were proposed in show-cause notices dated 24-12-2004, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the show-cause notice issued to M/s. Srivari Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. on 17-8-2005 was barred by limitation. He held that the Department had investigated the activities of the respondents and issued notices only as regards the liability of the respondents relating to services rendered to M/s. Rexon Industries Ltd. and M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. in December 2004. He found that larger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that the show-cause notice issued to the respondents proposing to recover service tax in respect of the services rendered by M/s. Robot to M/s. Srivari Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. invoking larger period was issued in time. The impugned order deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.) = 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) and submits that the second notice issued to the respondents for recovering service tax not paid after issue of similar notices to the respondents could not have validly invoked larger period. Therefore, the impugned order was passed in accordance with law. 3. I have considered the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiate proceedings invoking larger period if further detailed inquiries necessitated the same. In view of the ratio of the Saraswati Air Products case affirmed by the Apex Court I find that the impugned order had wrongly held that the demand and penalty were adjudged pursuant to a show cause notice issued beyond the normal period and in the circumstances in which larger period could not have been invoked. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Appeal Nos. S/45/2007 S/61/2007: 4. These appeals have been filed by M/s. Robot against Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 76 77/2006 (M-III) (ST) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- each. The appellants do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
