2024 (3) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er assistance given to M/s. Reliance Group Security Services (RGSS), who was the actual security provider, during the material period, as per the extant legal provisions and revenue instructions as existing. 2. Shri Saurabh Dixit, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that this is a second round of litigation. In the first round this Hon'ble CESTAT vide its order dated 30.11.2005 remanded the matter back with certain observation and while original authority was required to consider it appropriately and decide the demand quantum , the impugned order has on the contrary confirmed a higher demand by violating the remand terms as such. 2.1 He further submits that various trade notices and case laws referred to and r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(16) STR 335 (Tri.- Del) Harshal & Company vs. CCE, Vadodara - 2008 (12) STR 574 (Tri. - Ahmd) Semac Pvt Limited vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2006 (4) STR 475 (Tri. - Bang) Synergy Audio Visual Workshop P. Ltd vs. CST, Bangalore - 2008 (10) STR 578 (Tri. Bang) Melange Developers P. Ltd - 2019 (6) TMI 518 (Tri. -LB) Shanti Construction Co. - 2023 (3) TMI 14 - CESTAT Ahmedabad. 2.1 It is his submission that despite giving directions by this Tribunal in the order dated 22.09.2010 to considered the above judgments, the adjudicating authority has not whispered anything on judgment and ignoring the aspect of sub - contractor being not liable to pay service tax confirmed the demand once again, therefore, he ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lore - 2007 (5) STR 229 (Tri. Bang.) (c) Newton Engg. & Chemicals vs. CCE, Vadodara STR 378 (Tri.- Ahmd.) 2008 (12) (d) Central Excise Commissionerate, New Delhi Trade Notice No. 53 CE (Service Tax)/97 (e) Trade Notice No. 39-CE (Service Tax 39 )/97 date. 11.6.1997. 4. It äkeady stands further contended before us that show cause notice for the period 01.10.1999 to 31.3.2000 was issued on 25.4.2005 I.e. even beyond the period of 5 years. For all the above reasons, learned advocate prays that the matter be remanded to Commissioner for fresh adjudication in the light of above judgments, as also for re-consideration of issue of limitation. Learned DR agrees with the same. 5. In view of the above....