TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, M/s. Covansys India P. Ltd (UNIT-I) is hereby directed to show cause to the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - III Commissionerate, 135, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600 034 as to why :- (i) an amount of Rs. 16,98,259/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs ninety eight thousand two thundered and fifty nine only) being the service tax on the services rendered to their clients in DTA during the period from 2003-04 to 2005-06 should not be demanded from them under the extended proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994: (ii) a penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 76, 77 and 78 for contravening the provisions of Section 66 and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) Appropriate interest on the amount shown against Clause (i) should not be demanded under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 9. M/s. Covansys India P. Ltd (Unit-I) are further directed to produce at the time of showing cause all the evidences upon which they intend to rely in support of their defence. They are also required to state in their reply as to whether they wish to be heard in person before the case is adjudicated. If no mention is made about this in their written reply, it would be presume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll be decided ex-parte on the basis of evidences available on record. 11. This notice is issued without prejudice to any other action or further action or proceedings which may be initiated against them under the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994, and/or the Service Tax Rules 1994 and/or the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force in India." 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the adjudication of these Show Cause Notices long after their issuance is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the show cause proceedings need not be proceeded further. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was providing information technology services which become liable to service tax only with effect from 16.10.2023, pursuant to amendment to Finance Act, 1994 vide Finance Act, 2008 and therefore, on this count also proposal in the impugned Show Cause Notices are liable to be withdrawn. 4.1. That apart, it is submitted that there is no proper explanation as to why the impugned Show Cause Notices were transferred to Call Book on 08.04.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt-a-cab scheme operators' services, photography services and health club and fitness centre services. Whereas, the demand proposed in the impugned show-cause notices relates to levy of Service Tax on the petitioner on man-power recruitment/supply as defined under Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994 which is taxable during the period under Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act, 1994. 4.6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the predecessors of the petitioner Company were made liable to Service Tax only with effect from 16.05.2008 for Information Technology Software Service as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzze), which was inserted into Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, vide Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) dated 10.05.2008 with effect from 16.05.2008. It is submitted that the petitioner's predecessors were liable to pay Service Tax only from the aforesaid date and for the services rendered prior to the aforesaid period, tax was not leviable. 4.7. That apart, it is submitted that the demand proposed to the petitioner's predecessors, namely, M/s.Covansys (India) Pvt. Ltd., which was later merged with M/s.Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings as the case was referred to the callbook as early as on 08.04.2011. It is submitted that the decision was subsequently taken by the Board in its letter bearing reference F.No.206/01/21-CX.6 dated 19.05.2021, wherein, it has been stated that none of the Action Taken Notes included in Annexure B of the said circular was pending with Comptroller and Auditor General, apart from the cases mentioned in Annexure I annexed to the letter dated 19.05.2021 and has directed that all show-cause notices pertaining to all audit objections as per Annexure B of the said circular may be taken up for adjudication as per the procedure prescribed in Paragraph No.5 r/w. Paragraph No.6.1 of the said circular. It is therefore submitted that it is not open for the petitioner to state that there is a delay in adjudication of the show-cause notices. 5.1. That apart, it is submitted that against the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddhi Vinayak (supra), the Department has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.18214 of 2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in the light of the monetary restrictions, the Department could not proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....732/48/2003-CX; dated 05.08.2003. 8. That apart, there are earlier schemes referring cases to call-book has been referred to in Circular no.1023/11/2016-CX, dated 08.04.2016. In paragraph 6.1, it has been stated as under: "6.1. All audit objections relating to Central excise and Service tax issued prior to 1-3-2014 shall be compared with the pending Action Taken Notes (ATNs), received from the office of CAG, enclosed as Annexure B with the Circular. For Customs, the list shall be separately issued. Show Cause Notices (SCNs) relating to audit objections figuring in the list should not be adjudicated and further action may be taken on them in consultation with the Commissioner (PAC). The rest of the objections stand finally vetted by CAG Audit with no further comments which means that the reply of the department has been accepted by the CAG office. SCNs relating to these objections may be taken up for adjudication on merit, including those in the call-book, following the procedure prescribed in paragraph 5." 9. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly, that of this Court indicate that the delay in adjudication of show cause proceedings has to re....