Duplicate show-cause notice for same period held unsustainable when no fresh cause of demand was shown.

A second show-cause notice for the same period and substantially the same allegation was held unsustainable where an earlier notice had already initiated proceedings on delayed service tax payment with interest and penalty proposed. Because the later notice covered the same period and did not disclose any fresh short-payment or distinct cause of demand, it was treated as an impermissible repetition of the earlier proceedings. The notice was therefore void and illegal, and the setting aside of the demand was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second show-cause notice for the same period and substantially the same allegation was sustainable when proceedings had already been initiated by an earlier notice.

Analysis: The earlier notice covered the period April 2002 to October 2003 and proceeded on the basis of delayed payment of service tax, with interest and penalty proposed. The later notice also covered the same period and did not disclose any fresh short-payment as such. Since the record did not show a distinct demand arising from a different cause, the second notice was treated as an impermissible repetition of proceedings already initiated for the same subject matter.

Conclusion: The second show-cause notice was not sustainable, and the finding that it was void and illegal was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the order setting aside the demand was affirmed.

---