TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2, by which the demand made in the show cause notice for a sum of Rs. 5,43,092/- was confirmed with regard to the service tax for the period October 1998 to March 2001 along with payment of interest of Rs. 2,26,689/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act (for short the Act ) 1994 for the delayed payment of service tax. However, imposition of penalty under Sections 76-77 of the said Act was dropped. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued on 3-4-2003 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, on the ground that there had been suppression of value of taxable service with an intention to escape payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 34,78,209/-. Proposal for payment of interest and penalty was also made for failure of payment of service tax. In response to the said show cause notice, a reply was given by the respondent-assessee and thereafter the said notice was adjudicated upon and an Order-in-Original dated 14-11-2005 ( impugned order) came to be passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, by which the demand made was confirmed under Section 73 of the Act. It was also directed that interest is to be paid under Section 75 of the Act as well as penalty und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory and has granted relief to the respondent. We find that the approach of the Tribunal in this particular case has been very cursory. In fact, in a matter like this, if the facts are involved pertaining to suppression of material and second show cause notice has been issued, the entire factual matrix had to be considered in order to give a finding with regard to validity of the second show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner. In the absence of there being any application of mind on this issue, the Tribunal could not have allowed the appeal of the assessee by merely relying on the Apex Courts decision. The Tribunal could not have passed such an order by merely referring to a precedent and dispose of the matter without laying any foundation for the same in the form of narrating the facts and giving reasons and only by relying on the basis of the facts narrated and the contentions urged by the counsel. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri N. Anand, learned advocate appearing for the appellant as well as Shri Parashiva Murthy, learned AR appearing for the Revenue. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant explained the grounds of appeal and emphasized the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me facts for the same period. 4. The learned AR supported the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant before the learned Commissioner has made a blank assertion that the demand has covered the services rendered in respect of all the five jurisdictions. But they have failed to submit the details to justify the fact that the service tax has already been paid in respect of the various jurisdictions for the consideration included in the present show-cause notice / impugned order. He further argued that the Department will be entitled to issue show-cause notice invoking suppression in cases where different aspects of suppression came to light in the later period. 5. From the records, we find that in respect of Bangalore Branch of the appellant, there was a dispute pertaining to period October 1998 to March 2001, which was settled with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dt. 06/05/2002. The appellant has also made payment of the service tax demanded therein to the tune of Rs. 5,43,092/- along with applicable interest for the period October 1998 to March 2001. Subsequently, it would appear from the records that the Department sought some information from the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if not paid or short-paid within his jurisdiction. Since it is evident that the total demand of service tax to the tune of Rs. 34 lakhs also covers the service rendered within the jurisdiction of the four branch offices outside Bangalore for which separate registrations have been taken and service tax paid separately, it will be necessary to exclude such demand pertaining to outside jurisdictions. Further it is on record that the appellant has been discharging the service tax liability even within the jurisdiction of Bangalore periodically and submitting their ST-3 returns. The impugned order has failed to deduct the service tax already paid within the Bangalore jurisdiction, for which the demand obviously has become double taxation. Further it is on record that for the period October 1998 to March 2001 differential service tax to the tune of Rs. 5.43 lakhs has also been paid. This also needs to be taken into account in the requantification. 7. The appellant has vociferously argued that the show-cause ntoice dt. 03/04/2003 has been issued for demanding service tax without mentioning the period involved therein. From the other documents submitted, it appears to us that the demand....