TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted against the Order-in-Original No. 05/2015(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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tails incorporated in the table given below: - Period Value of income as per Form 26AS Value declared in ST-3 Differential value 10/08 to 03/09 5201018 0 5201018 04/09 to 03/10 13054346 3172806 9881540 04/10 to 03/11 13871416 8698243 5173173 04/11 to 03/12 22433844 16948386 5485458 04/12 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was issued with a Show Cause Notice No. 45/2008 dated 21.10.2008 demanding service tax of Rs.20,92,422/- under extended time limit under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 which has ultimately resulted in disposal by rejecting the Department's Appeal by the Final Order Nos. 40816-40860 dated 29.05.2017 by the Tribunal Chennai. 2.2 The Ld. Advocate contended that invoking larger period second time again in the Show Cause Notice No. 22/2014-ST dated 21.04.2014 is against the law placing reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision 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 sustainab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI] in a batch of NLC contractors which is similar to the Appellant. The relevant portion is extracted for ease of reference: - "5.12 From these discussions above, it is amply clear that the entire process of issue of show cause notices was done in a very hasty and slipshod manner without giving any raison detre for demanding service tax on the various activities "deduced" by department to have been provided by the respondents/assesses. 5.13 The show cause notices do not also indicate the list of the activities provided by the department, 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 liabilitie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudication proceedings, the matter requires to be remanded. 4. We have heard both sides and considered the rival submissions of both the Ld. Advocate and the Ld. Authorized Representative. 5. The service tax demand has been raised in the instant appeal on comparison of receipts of the Appellant as declared for income tax and in ST-3 returns. The only plea that has been raised by the Appellant is that the consideration received from NLC includes the amounts received for works contract services which were mistakenly shown under Maintenance and Repairs Service and he has further sought time to explain the difference in the taxable values as evident from the Grounds of Appeal filed. 6. We find that the Original Authority has accorde....