TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Private Ltd., 308, 3rd Floor, Padam Business Park, 12A, Avas Viaks Sikandara, Agra under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Act read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 (ii) I hereby set aside the remnant demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.7,86,119/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred Nineteen Only)(inclusive all cess), as discussed supra (iii) I hereby confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.14,065/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Sixty Five Only)(inclusive all cess) on legal expenses in the F.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 (Up to June, 2017), upon the noticee under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Act read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 (iv) I confirm the interest on the amount as mentioned at Sr. No. (i) & (iii, above at appropriate rate under Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act,2017 (v) I hereby impose the penalty to the tune of Rs.53,57,546/-(Rupees Fifty Three Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Forty Six Only) (Rs Rs.53,43,481/-+ Rs.14,065/-) upon the Noticee under Section 78 of the Act read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, an option is being glven to noticee u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble services during the impugned period but did not disclose the same in service tax returns filed with the department. It is seen that the taxable value as per third balance sheet/26AS is far higher than that of shown in service tax returns which have already been discussed in details in the notice. Hence, the Noticee has willfully and deliberately suppressed their gross taxable value form the department by not disclosing the same in the service tax returns with intent to evade payment of service tax thereupon. The facts have come into the knowledge of the Department after investigation initiated against the Noticee on basis of the third party data information. This evasion of service tax remain unnoticed if enquiry has not been initiated by the Department for verification of service tax for the impugned period on the basis of third party data information and the Noticee would have succeeded in evading service tax payable upon the gross taxable value. Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Versus Collector of Central Excise, A.P. does not applicable in the impugned Show Cause Notice as in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory it was held that when fist SCN was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at subsequent show cause notice could not have been issued by invoking extended period of limitation. Even for the previous period where the show cause notice has been issued invoking extended period of limitation and the demands were confirmed holding that extended period of limitation would be applicable we have Vide Final Order No.70601/2024 dated 25.09.2024 demand was set aside on limitation. "4.9 Thus we do not find any reason put forth in the show cause notice or the orders of lower authorities for holding that the appellant has suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. 4.10 We do not find any merits in the impugned order to the extent it uphold the demand by invoking extended period of limitation. As entire demand has been made by invoking the extended period of limitation we are unable to uphold the demand." Coordinate Bench has in case of A.N. Kapoor (Janitors) Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 153 (Tri. - All.)] observed as follows: "17. It needs to be noted that the extended period of limitation was sought to be invoked in the first and the second show cause notices. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicating authority, however, did not accept the plea and the demands raised in the show cause notices were confirmed. Appeals were filed before the Tribunal relating to the second and the third show cause notices. It was contended before the Tribunal that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked since there can be no suppression of facts when a show cause notice had been issued by the Department on the basis of certain set of facts is followed by another show cause notice for a later period on the same set of facts. The contention advanced was that the Department was fully aware of the facts even at the time of issuance of first show cause notice. The Supreme Court disposed of the Appeals on the point of limitations only and the observations are as follows : "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) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.) has taken the view that in a case in which a show cause notice has been issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ier issued show cause notices in respect of the same subject-matter. It has been held 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 period and/or it cannot be taken into consideration as it is not known when that Show Cause Notice was dropped. If the Department wanted to take up such contentions it is for them to show that that Show Cause Notice was not relevant and was not applicable. The Department has not brought any of those facts on record. Therefore, the Department cannot now ....