TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 762
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....801- 21804/2018 relating to the Appeal Nos.ST/369/2008, 370/2008, 371/20089, 701/2008-DB whereby the appeal filed by the respondent herein has been partly allowed. 2. The appeal has been admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law. "1. Whether the CESTAT was right in not taking into cognizance the facts brought out in the Order-in-Original that the respondent had collected Service Tax from its clients, but not paid tax on the services rendered by them under the category of Security services? 2. Whether the CESTAT has erred in not taking into cognizance the fact that the earlier notice dated 09.08.2004 and adjudication order dated 18.08.2004 were issued on different set of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed on the Managing Director, Joint Director as well as on the company, remanded the case back to the original authority to quantify the demand for the normal period holding that the respondent could also be liable to pay interest as per law, if there is delay in the payment of tax found by the adjudicating authority. Thus, the remand on the extended period of limitation has been set aside placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory V/s. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)]. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the CESTAT grossly erred in blindly applying the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g been challenged before the Tribunal, the same was set aside. Placing reliance on Nizam Sugar Factory supra, submitted that when the first show cause was issued and all the relevant facts were within the knowledge of the authorities, while issuing second show cause notice on the similar facts cannot be considered as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee, as these facts were already in the knowledge of authorities. Hence period of extension ought not to have been invoked in issuing the second show cause notice on 19.10.2006 for the period April 2001 to March 2006. This would indicate the overlapping of the demand made for the period April 2001 to March 2006. The CESTAT having regard to these aspects has rightly allowed the appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of facts again is not reasonable since repeated issuance of notices would result in revisiting the concluded proceedings and reopening of the proceedings at any point of time. In the case of Commissioner of C. EX., S. T & Cus., Bangalore-II V/s. Nitesh Estates Ltd., [2018 (17) G.S.T.L. 414 (Kar.)], the Co-ordinate bench of this Court where one of us, (Hon'ble SSJ was a member) as held that Central Board of Excise and Customs being the highest administrative body of department, departmental clarification issued by such body is binding on the Revenue, on the contrary Revenue cannot be allowed to argue against legal position rightly explained by C.B.E. & C itself. Reference placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the Circular No....