TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause notice dated 15th April 2014 for the period from 2008 to 2012 on the ground of being inconsistent with bar of limitation prescribed in section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. The proceedings against M/s National Institute of Bank Management, the respondent herein, to fasten liability for having provided 'taxable services' '(zzc) - to any person, by commercial training or coaching centre in relation to commercial training or coaching' in section 65(105) with 'commercial training and coaching centre' defined in section 65(26) and 65(27) of Finance Act, 1994 as applicable to 'post-graduate course in management' offered by them and which, according to the grounds of appeal referring to letter no. 354/91/2005-TRU dated 22nd Augu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 2003 to September 2008 has been, thus, curtailed and the present demand leading to the impugned order relates to the period thereafter till 2012 for which show-cause notice was issued on 15th April 2014. We also find from the impugned order that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)] holding that '8. Without going into the question regarding Classification and marketability and leaving the same open, we intend to dispose of the appeals on the point of limitation only. This Court in the case of P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (2003) 3 SCC 599 = 2003 (153....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orma indicating related persons. The necessary facts had been brought to the notice of the authorities at different intervals from 1985 to 1988 and further, they had dropped the proceedings accepting that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. It is, therefore, futile to contend that there has been suppression of fact in regard M/s. Pharmachem Distributors being a related person. On that score, we are unable to uphold the invoking of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act for making the demand for the extended period." This judgment was followed by this Court in the case of ECE Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in (2004) 13 SCC 719 = 2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C.). In para 4, it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use Notice was on a similar issue and for an identical amount is not correct." 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 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 no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant. 10. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal Nos. 2747 of 2001 and Civil App....