TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015(C) dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry confirming the demand of service tax of Rs.53,72,124/- under the proviso to Section 73(1) invoking extended period along with interest and imposed penalties under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 1.2 Brief facts of the appeal are that the Appellant is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of Management, Maintenance and repair of goods, equipments or properties and Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services. During the audit of accounts of the Appellant, a comparison between the income reflected in the Income Tax Statements (Form 26AS) and the taxable turn over declared in the ST-3 returns for the period from October 2008 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 to 03/13 21145942 0 21145942 75706566 28819435 46887131 Thus, it appears that the Appellant had not declared a taxable value of Rs.4,68,87,131/- for the above disputed period and service tax so short paid was worked out to Rs.53,72,124/- as detailed in the Annexure-'A' to the Show Cause Notice No. 22/2014-ST dated 21.04.2014. 1.4 As evident from the Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant has submitted that the services rendered by him include works contract services and while filing the ST-3 returns, the Appellant has declared the taxable value of works contract after abatement instead of showing the gross amount. The difference in the values for income tax and service tax purposes has occurred as the Department has taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision in the case of Nizam Sugars Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, AP [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that invocation of longer period not to be legally sustainable when the Revenue is aware of all the facts which reads as: - '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'. 2.3 He has further contested that levy of service tax on amount mentioned as contract rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment, or justify all these activities fall within the ambit of taxable services for the purpose of the Finance Act, 1994 or indicate specifically the separate tax liabilities demanded on each such individual taxable service. 5.14 Viewed in this light, we find that the respondents herein have been asked to show cause to defend the indefensible. When the show cause notice itself is bereft of clarity and does not convey the exact nature of the alleged act or omission or any other infraction that has resulted in differential tax liability, the assesses will then find themselves helpless and unable to see any light of the end of the dispute tunnel. 5.15 Such short comings and deficiencies in the show cause notices are uncurable defects which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... explain the difference in the taxable values as evident from the Grounds of Appeal filed. 6. We find that the Original Authority has accorded opportunity of personal hearing on 17.11.2014, 08.12.2014, 15.12.2014, 15.01.2015 and lastly on 06.02.2015. The Appellant had not availed the opportunities provided to him. It is also evident that the Appellant has not submitted any reply to the Show Cause Notice No. 22/2014-ST dated 21.04.2014. There was no response from the Appellant to the Letters of the Superintendent of Central Excise and Service Tax, Neyveli Range with reference to information sought and questions raised. As per the income tax statements, the total taxable income of the Appellant was declared as Rs.7,57,06,566/- whereas the ta....