2009 (8) TMI 961

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n behalf of cane growers members, paid charges of Rs. 75,26,756/- to the transporters for transportation of sugarcane from their farms to the factory gate of the appellant; that the appellant was issued with SCN-cum-demand notice dated 6-5-2002 directing the appellant to show cause as to why the Service tax of Rs. 3,76,347/- along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and penalty under Section 78 of the Act should not be demanded and recovered; that the said SCN-cum-Demand Notice was adjudicated with confirmation of Service tax under Section 73 of the Act along with interest under Section 75 vide order dated 27-2-2002; that subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal No. 37/2003 along with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Department has also issued another SCN dated 6-5-2002 which, on confirmation by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal filed before the CESTAT was allowed and hence, the second SCN dated 8-11-2004 is not sustainable and the appellant relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Sidharth Tubes Ltd. - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 331 and Commissioner (Appeals)'s Order No. 60/2007 dated 30-4-2007; (iii) that the subsequent SCN-cum-Demand Notice is also clearly time barred as the extended period of limitation is not available to the department and the appellant relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Ghatprabha SSK Ltd., 2007 (8) S.T.R. 545 (Tri. Bang); (iv) that the Assistant C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant approached the CESTAT, who vide its order dated 20-9-2005 allowed the appeal of the appellant by following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Meerut-II v. M/s. L. H. Sugar Factories Ltd. - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.) = 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.); that being the facts of the case, the appellant was again issued with another SCN dated 8-11-2004 covering the same amount and the same period which has been adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 21-1-2009 against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. From the above facts, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner has committed so many errors. First of all, he has not followed the r....