2018 (2) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the appellant was providing services to various State/Central Government organizations, which was alleged to be falling under the taxable category of Advertising Services. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued on 22.10.2007 demanding Service Tax of Rs. 8,31,652/- for the period 2002-03 to 2005-06. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected the appeal of the appellant. 4. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the leviability of Service Tax. However, he vehemently argued that the present demand notice is barred by limitation, as on similar issue, invoking exten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd s case (supra). Therefore, analysis of the Nizam Sugar Factory s is relevant to consider whether second SCN is barred by limitation. The circumstances, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed in the said judgement reads as follows: -  "5. The Department had issued a Show Cause Notice (for short the SCN ) to the appellant on 28-2-1984 demanding duty for the period February, 1978 to September, 1982 on the production of impure Carbon dioxide emanating as a by-product during the process of fermentation of molasses in the appellants factory. It was alleged that the assessee had cleared the said carbon dioxide without payment of duty to another unit in contravention of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f limitation under Section 11A(1) was not justified in the circumstances of the case. Appellant was served with the third SCN on 12-9-1988 for the period 16-3-1988 to 27-6-1988 on the same allegations. Assessee filed its reply in terms of the earlier replies i.e. reply to SCN dated 16-7-1987. The adjudicating authority did not accept the appellant s contention and the demands raised in the SCN were confirmed." The Hon'ble Supreme Court after analysing the issue observed in para 9 as follows: - "9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause no....