TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with the Department as a provider of said service from 7-8-2003. Inspection of the records of M/s. Robot revealed that they had rendered security agency service to various customers without fulfilling their statutory obligations including payment of service tax. Three show-cause notices were issued to M/s. Robot proposing to recover service tax and to impose penalties on them relating to the service provided to various customers. Details of the SCNs are as follows: Customer Period SCN Date Amt. of ST Srivari Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. 4/02 to 11/04 12-6-2005 13,645 Rexon Industries Ltd. 12/01 to 6/03 8/03 to 2/04 24-12-2004 6,976 Supreme Industries Ltd. 99 to 2004 24-12-2004 61,957 2. In all t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Ltd. and M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. in December 2004. He found that larger period could not validly be invoked in respect of the services rendered by the same assessee to another client of it in a SCN issued in June 2005. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Department should have gathered full particulars from the appellants before issuing show-cause notices relating to services rendered by the respondents to some of its customers, having come to know the activities of the respondents. In passing the said order the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a decision of his predecessor in Precious Publications Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 64 (Commr. Appl.). 2. The Revenue has taken the ground that the Department could issue notice in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance with law. 3. I have considered the rival submissions. The impugned order had vacated the order of the original authority demanding service tax, interest and imposing penalty on the respondents relying on a decision of his predecessor-in-office. The order does not discuss the ratio of this decision. As regards Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) judgment is concerned, the apex Court held that invocation of larger period is not permissible in a subsequent notice issued to the same assessee on the basis of the same set of facts which the Department was in possession at the time of issuance of the first notice. In the instant case the respondents have no case that the authorities were aware of the liability of the respondents relating to servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- each. The appellants do not dispute their liability to tax. The only relief claimed is to treat the gross value realized in each case as inclusive of service tax, and to redetermine their liability on that basis. The learned counsel for the appellants submits a copy of a decision of this Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Advantage Media Consultant - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 449 (Tri.-Kolkata). In the said decision the Tribunal had held that where an assessee did not collect service tax in addition to gross value separately, the taxable value had to be considered to include also the element of service tax. The above relief was extended to the respondents in that case for the period before introduction of E....