TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in service tax dispute citing time-barred demand</h1> <h3>M/s. D.M. Wall System Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai</h3> M/s. D.M. Wall System Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai - TMI Issues:1. Service tax demand confirmation for the period 2006-07 under Intellectual Property Right Service.2. Contention regarding limitation due to prior show cause notice under Consulting Engineer Service.3. Rejection of appellant's plea by Commissioner (Appeals).4. Dispute over the invocation of the larger period for fresh proceedings under Intellectual Property Right Service.5. Application of the principle from Nizam Sugar Factory case by the Tribunal.6. Decision on the time bar issue and setting aside the impugned order.Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around a service tax demand confirmation for the period 2006-07 under Intellectual Property Right Service. The appellant contested the confirmation based on the limitation issue arising from a prior show cause notice under Consulting Engineer Service.2. The appellant argued that the Revenue, having issued an earlier show cause notice under a different category of services for the same agreement, was debarred from raising a subsequent show cause notice invoking the larger period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this plea, citing the appellant's failure to disclose payments made to a foreign service provider, leading to the invocation of the extended time limit.3. The appellate authority disputed the Commissioner's reasoning, emphasizing that fresh proceedings under Intellectual Property Right Service were initiated after the introduction of the taxable service, despite the prior notice under a different category. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellate authority's reasoning and referred to the Nizam Sugar Factory case, which prohibits subsequent show cause notices for the same facts known to the Revenue from the first notice.4. Following the precedent set by the Nizam Sugar Factory case, the Tribunal ruled that the demand was time-barred. Without delving into the case's merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order solely on the grounds of the limitation issue, ultimately allowing the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of adherence to time limits and the prohibition against multiple notices for the same facts known to the Revenue.
TaxTMI 