TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the category of "Renting of Immovable Property Service" and "Management, Maintenance & Repair Services". According to Revenue on the basis of intelligent reports it was found that the Appellants were providing "Renting of Immovable Property Services" but were not discharging service tax on the rent collected from their tenants, M/s Vishal Retail Ltd.(i.e. "the licensee"). An inquiry was initiated against the Appellants and a show cause notice dated 22/04/2013 was issued for payment of Rs. 9,27,000/- for the period October 2008 to March, 2009 and September, 2009 to October, 2009 with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1944 and penalties under sections 76 & 78 ibid respectively. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the matter of Nizam Sugar Factorty vs. CCE, AP; 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC) and also on the decision of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Jain Metal Components(P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2008 (226) ELT593 (Tri.-Del). He further submitted that renting per se was not taxable service prior to 2010 and that it is only when Finance Bill, 2010 amended the definition of taxable services for renting of immovable property service, it was made applicable with retrospective effect. Since there was confusion amongst the member of retailer association, of which the lessee was also one of the members, the said lessee did not make the payment of Service Tax to the Appellant and therefore the Appellants have not discharged the same to the Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive that earlier also a show cause notice dated 08/10/2010 was issued to the Appellants for the same issue concerning the same licensee, covering the period April, 2009 to August 2009. If that is so and if the department is aware about the alleged misdeeds in the year, 2010 itself, when the first show cause notice was issued, then why the department waited for three long years for issuing the second show cause notice for the same issue that too by invoking the extended period. It is legally unsustainable. Undisputedly, the second show cause notice dated 22/4/2013 was issued covering the period October, 2008 to March, 2009 and September, 2009 to October, 2009 by invoking the extended period. The first/earlier show cause notice dated 08/10/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee cannot be issued as the facts were already in the knowledge of the department. It was observed in para 14 as follows : We have indicated above the facts which make it clear that "14. the question whether M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was a related person has been the subject-matter of consideration of the Excise authorities at different stages, when the classification was filed, when the first show cause notice was issued in 1985 and also at the stage when the second and the third show cause notices were issued in 1988. At all these stages, the necessary material was before the authorities. They had then taken the view that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. If the authorities came to the conclusion subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that in such circumstances, it could not be said that there was any wilful suppression or mis-statement and that therefore, the extended period under Section 11A could not be invoked." Similarly, this judgment was again followed in the case of Hyderabad Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in [2004 (166) E.L.T. 151 (S.C.)]. It was observed in para 6 : ".......... On the ratio laid down in this judgment it must be held that once the earlier Show Cause Notice, on similar issue has been dropped, it can no longer be said that there is any suppression. The extended period of limitation would thus not be available. We are unable to accept the submission that earlier Show Cause Notice was for a subsequent p....