Second show-cause notice for the same period held without jurisdiction, so the demand based on it was set aside.

A second show-cause notice for the same period, issued while an earlier notice covering that period was still pending adjudication, was held to be not maintainable in law. Applying binding precedent, the Tribunal treated the later notice as without jurisdiction because the disputed period was already the subject of an unresolved prior notice. The demand based on that second notice therefore could not survive and was set aside. The Tribunal did not examine the underlying taxability of the delayed payment charges, as the jurisdictional defect in the subsequent notice was sufficient to dispose of the matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second show-cause notice issued for the same period while the earlier show-cause notice covering that period was still pending adjudication was without jurisdiction and whether the resulting demand could be sustained.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the legality of issuing a second notice for the same period, before disposal of the first notice, as settled by binding precedent. It held that where a subsequent show-cause notice covers the same period already the subject of an earlier pending notice, the later notice is not maintainable in law. On that basis, the adjudication founded on the second notice could not survive. The Tribunal did not enter into the merits of taxability of the delayed payment charges.

Conclusion: The second show-cause notice was held to be without jurisdiction, and the demand confirmed on its basis was set aside.

---