2025 (8) TMI 87 - AT - Service Tax

Demand under Section 73(1A) dismissed for being based on previously settled grounds violating natural justice

The CESTAT CHANDIGARH held that the demand based on the deemed SCN under Section 73(1A) dated 20.04.2015 was unsustainable as it was issued on the same ... Valid SCN or not - demand based on the Statement u/s 73(1A) dated 20.04.2015 (deemed SCN) as no separate SCN was issued to the appellants - impugned order passed without application of mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is found that in the present case, the entire proceeding emanated from the Statement under Section 73(1A) dated 20.04.2015 on the same grounds on which earlier SCN dated 15.06.2012 and Statement under Section 73(1A) dated 16.07.2013 were issued. It is found that it is clearly stated in the impugned order that the present demand is being raised on the same grounds as discussed in the earlier SCN dated 15.06.2012 and Statement under Section 73(1A) dated 16.07.2013. Further, it is found that the SCN dated 15.06.2012 and the Statement under Section 73(1A) dated 16.07.2013 were decided by a common order-inoriginal dated 18.06.2014 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I and against the said order-in-original, two appeals were filed, one appeal bearing no. ST/55070/2014 by the assessees/appellants and another appeal bearing no. ST/55329/2014 by the department. I It is also found that this Tribunal, vide Final Order dated 26.10.2018 [2018 (12) TMI 25 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], allowed the appeal of the assessees/appellants and dismissed the appeal of the department. It is also found that againt the Tribunal’s order dated 26.10.2018, the department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 28.08.2023 [2023 (9) TMI 138 - SC ORDER] dismissed the appeal of the department on limitation. When the earlier appeals were pending before the Tribunal, the another Statement dated 20.04.2015 under Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act was issued, on the basis of which, the impugned order has been passed confirming the demand along with interest and imposing the penalties. Further, once the earlier SCN dated 15.06.2012 has attained finality then the present deemed SCN dated 20.04.2015 under Section 73(1A) being issued on the same grounds as stated in the earlier SCN, should have been dropped by following the judicial discipline by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed. ISSUES: Whether a Statement issued under Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 can be treated as a valid Show Cause Notice (SCN) when it does not specify the grounds of demand distinctly and introduces new classification of taxable services.Whether a demand for service tax can be confirmed on grounds different from those mentioned in the original SCN or Statement under Section 73(1A), particularly when there is a change in the classification of services from positive list to negative list regime.Whether the principle of judicial discipline requires the adjudicating authority to follow the final orders of appellate authorities and refrain from reopening demands on the same grounds.Whether the impugned order confirming demand, interest, and penalties without issuing a proper and valid SCN and without application of mind is sustainable.Whether the demand for service tax on works contract service is covered under the exemption Clause 12(a) of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 valid up to 31.03.2015. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Statement under Section 73(1A) dated 20.04.2015 was held to be neither a valid SCN nor a valid Statement under Section 73(1A) and thus 'void ab initio' as it failed to fulfill the mandatory ingredients of a valid SCN or Statement and was vague and cryptic.The demand confirmed under the new classification 'works contract service' could not be sustained as it was beyond the scope of the original SCN issued for different services; the adjudicating authority cannot 'improve upon the SCN' or go beyond its grounds.Judicial discipline mandates that once a matter is decided by a higher appellate authority and the order attains finality, the lower authorities must follow the same and not reopen the issue on identical grounds; the impugned demand should have been dropped.The impugned order was passed without proper application of mind, violated principles of natural justice, and failed to comply with the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by CBIC, rendering it unsustainable in law.The matter fell squarely within the exemption Clause 12(a) of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 valid up to 31.03.2015, and thus the demand was not justified on merits. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory provisions of Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994, which requires that demands raised in subsequent proceedings must be on the same grounds as those in the original SCN or Statement; deviation from this principle renders the demand invalid.Precedents were relied upon emphasizing that the SCN is the foundation of the case and that Revenue cannot build a new case by introducing new grounds after the SCN is issued, citing judgments including CCE, Chandigarh vs. Shital International and Amar Coach Builders vs. CCE, Jalandhar.The doctrine of judicial discipline was extensively discussed, referencing Supreme Court decisions mandating adherence to higher appellate orders by subordinate authorities to prevent harassment and ensure orderly administration of justice.The Court noted the change from the positive list regime to the negative list regime and held that the adjudicating authority erred in not addressing this shift in the impugned order, thereby violating settled legal principles.The Court rejected the Revenue's attempt to rely on Mega Notification No. 25/2012 without properly incorporating its applicability in the Statement or SCN, underlining that the adjudicating authority cannot improve or extend the grounds beyond those originally stated.