2018 (2) TMI 1445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ates (AR) for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Smt. Archana Wadhwa The service tax demand stands confirmed against the appellant for the period 2006 07 by raising a show cause notice dated 4.8.2008 under the category of Intellectual Property Right Service. 2. The appellant had strongly assailed the said confirmation even before the Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Commissioner of Service Tax on an identical issue which arose from the same agreement for the earlier period, that there is no suppression of facts and hence extended period of time limit is not invocable in the instant case. I find that the issue pertaining to earlier period had not attained finality. The appellant had argued further that when the facts are known to the department there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e note attached to the balance sheet of 2006 07. The very action of not intimating about the payments made even after issue of SCN in 2004 shows that they had suppressed the facts with an intention to evade payment of tax. Hence, I told that this is a clear case of suppression of facts and the lower adjudicating authority had rightly invoked the extended period of time." 4. As is see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Property Service, being a taxable service, fresh proceedings were initiated by invoking the larger period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. reported in 2006 (97) ELT 465 (SC) has categorically held that when the first show cause notice is issued, all the facts come to the knowledge of the Revenue, in which circumst....