2025 (8) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2012-13 on 25.09.2014 invoking the extended period provisions demanding Service Tax of Rs.7,02,78,175/-. After due process, the Adjudicating authority dropped the demand of Rs.36,74,665/-. He confirmed balance Service Tax of Rs.6,66,03,510/-. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. The Department has not preferred any Appeal against the dropped demand of Rs.36,74,665/-. 2. The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Show Cause Notice issued on 25.09.2014 by invoking the extended period is hit by time bar for most of the period involved. He submits that on an identical issue in the case of the same Appellant, the Show Cause Notice was issued for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09. This matter came up befor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice came to be issued for an amount of Rs.13,35,07,269/- on 09.08.2010 on an identical issue in respect of the present appellant. The demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating authorityand the matter travelled to Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.77064/2025 dated 29.07.2025 set aside impugned order therein and allowed the Appeal holding as under:- "10.3 From the decisions cited supra, we are of the view that the Show Cause Notice, issued without quantifying the demand of Service Tax category-wise, is void ab initio and hence the demand of Service Tax confirmed on the basis of such Notice is legally not sustainable. Consequently, we hold that the demand of Service Tax confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and hence, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (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 issued for the earlier period on certain set of facts, then, on the same set of facts another SCN based on the same/similar set of facts invoking the extended period of limitation on the plea of suppression of facts by the assessee cannot be issued as the facts were already in the knowledge of the department. It was observed in para 14 as follows : "14. We have indicated above the facts which make it clear that the question whether M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was a related person has been the subject-matter of consideration of the Excise authorities at different stages, when the classification was filed, when the first ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In para 4, it was observed : "4. In the case of M/s. P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [2003 (2) SCALE 390], the question was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the Department has earlier 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....