2018 (3) TMI 1132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... present dispute covers the period 2009-10 and 2010-11 for which show cause notice dated 19/10/2012 was issued and after the process of adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands and Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,01,66,041/- along with interest. Since the demand of Service Tax was confirmed under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, the penalty of an equal amount was imposed under Section 78. Further penalty of Rs. 17,600/- was also imposed under Section 77. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background we heard Shri Dharmendra Kumar Rana, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Shri Ranjan Khanna and Shri Amresh Jain, Ld. DRs on behalf of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and even regularly filing statutory ST-3 Returns. Further the accounts of the appellants have also been regularly audited by the departmental officers. In this regard attention was drawn to the IAR No. 491/2012 dated 07/03/2014 covering the audit period April, 2008 to September, 2013 and to IAR No. 636/2015-16 dated August 2015 covering the audit period October, 2013 to March, 2015. iii. The Ld. Advocate also argued that on merit also, the issue stands finally decided in favour of the appellant both in the proceedings for the period prior to the present case as well as for the period subsequent to the present proceedings. 5. The Ld. DR justified the impugned order. He drew our attention to para 52 of the impugned order in whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the suppression clause once again in the second show cause notice. 9. We have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "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 notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same, hold that there was n....