2013 (2) TMI 273 - AT - Service Tax

Non-discharge of Service Tax liability - two SCN were issued - FAA set aside the OIO as there is an overlapping of demand on the same issue by two different show cause notices - Held that - There is no dispute that two show cause notices are issued by the Revenue authorities to the assessee herein for demand of the very same period and also alleges that he has not paid the Service Tax liability and on a specific query from the Bench, it was informed by Chartered Accountant that in de-novo proceedings the demands were confirmed by lower authorities and Stay Petitions were heard by the Tribunal and unconditional waiver was granted Since very same issue had come up before Tribunal the first appellate authority was correct in setting aside the Order-in-Original. No reason to interfere in such a well reasoned order - against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjudication based on show cause notice for non-discharge of Service Tax liability.
2. Appeal against adjudication order rejected by first appellate authority.
3. Tribunal remanded the matter back to adjudicating authority.
4. Issuance of another show cause notice during de-novo proceedings.
5. Confirmation of demand, imposition of penalties, and overlapping of demands by two different notices.
6. Appeal before Tribunal against first appellate authority's decision.
7. Tribunal's decision on the correctness and legality of the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The respondent was issued a show cause notice for non-discharge of Service Tax liability based on a departmental audit query. The notice was adjudicated, and the appeal against it was rejected by the first appellate authority.

2. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh. During the de-novo proceedings, another show cause notice was issued to the assessee, directing them to show cause why the same amount should not be recovered.

3. Despite being informed about the de-novo proceedings, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and interest. The first appellate authority set aside the Order-in-Original due to an overlapping of demands by two different show cause notices on the same issue.

4. The Revenue appealed against the first appellate authority's decision. The Tribunal found that two show cause notices were issued for the same period, and the demands were confirmed in de-novo proceedings. Stay petitions were heard, and unconditional waiver was granted.

5. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order. The impugned order was deemed correct, legal, and free from any infirmity.

6. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross objection was disposed of by the Tribunal. The judgment concluded that the impugned order was valid and upheld the decision of the first appellate authority.