TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Tribunal on the issues which are as under: (i) Time Bar: The learned Counsel had submitted that the entire demand was time barred. The demand raised in the show cause notice was for the period July 2012 to 2015-16. However, the demand of Rs. 72,81,923/- had been dropped and the impugned order had confirmed the demand of Rs.8,69,305. Ld Counsel submitted that the period for issue of the said notice had expired, hence the demand was hit by time bar. (ii) Learned counsel also submitted that figures had been taken from third party i.e. income tax department on the basis of 26AS. However, the department had conducted no investigations independently & hence no demand could be raised. No finding has given on this issue and neither have the decisions been considered. (iii) Further, learned counsel submitted that during 2014-15, the appellant was entitled for benefit of exemption on threshold limit of Rs.10,00,000/-. However, no findings have been given on this issue. (iv) The appellant was entitled to cum-tax benefit, on which no finding is given. (v) The notice show cause was issued on two services (i) Works Contract Service and (ii)Ere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te, the limitation for demanding duty under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was six months and that the show-cause notices were issued beyond six months from the relevant dates. It was claimed that any such show-cause notice issued after six months from the date of expiry of period of dispute was time-barred. It was also pointed out that, in none of the show-cause notices, there was any allegation for invoking the extended period of limitation. Opposing this plea, learned SDR submitted that, as the relevant show-cause notices were issued within the period of limitation (one year) prescribed under Section 11A(1) as this provision (as amended) stood on the dates of issue of the notices, there was no need to invoke the extended limitation in any of the cases. In this connection, reliance was placed on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works v. CCE - (Tri.-LB), wherein a ROM application filed by the appellant on 19-8-2003 against a final order passed by the Tribunal in the year 2001 was held to be time-barred inasmuch as the application had been filed beyond six months from 11-5-2002, the date on which the period of limitation for such applications....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spond. Meanwhile, information was sought from third party sources and TDS Certificates in Form 26AS for 2012-13 to 2015-16 was received from these sources. It is also seen that the Department perused the electronic records of the appellant from the ACES portal, which has been annexed as RuD to the said notice. The Show Cause Notice goes on illustrate that further investigations were conducted with the Accounts Officer (BWC), Ajmer Advait Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Bhilwara and vide their letter dated 24.05.2017, have informed that the appellant had been providing services since 2012-13 to 2015-16 and the letter had also indicated details of payments made to the appellant by them. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel are with regard to the cases made merely on 26AS statement whereas we note that there are several corroborative evidences as listed in the said notice which independently establish that the appellant had provided taxable services during the period in question. In view of the above, we add the following para in Final Order No.50784/2025 dated 27.05.2025 after para 10: "10.1 Learned Counsel has submitted that the demand was purely based on 26AS statement with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the appellant failed to pay proper service tax but the department failed to collect independent evidence and reliable material for raising the demand of service tax on differential basis." 10.2 In the instant case, as noted above, investigations have revealed several corroborative evidences (RuDs to the show cause notice) which independently establish that the appellant had provided taxable services during the period in question. Hence, the decisions of the Ld Counsel do not come in support of the appellant." 8. The learned Counsel has submitted that the show cause notice has been issued relying on the provisions that existed prior to 01.7.2012. Learned authorised representative has submitted that the new provisions have been mentioned in para 4.1 of the said notice. In this context, we note that a Show Cause Notice is a formal communication by a competent authority calling upon a person to explain why proposed adverse action should not be taken against them, before any such decision is made. The Supreme Court has consistently held that quoting an incorrect legal provision in a Show Cause Notice doesn't automatically invalidate it as this is a curable defect. It ....