2018 (6) TMI 585 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of second SCN - Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation - Held that - Present SCN is issued for the same service provided by the same appellant for which earlier SCN was issued which was adjudicated also. Further the present SCN is issued with invocation of extended period - The law does not allow issue of demand on the same service from the same assessee for the same period for more than one time - impugned SCN not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.115/ST/ALLD/2011 dated 13.09.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal dated 13.09.2011, where the appellants were providing 'Technical Advisory Service' to a company. The appellants were issued a show cause notice for demanding service tax. Subsequently, it was discovered that the revenue had received incomplete information regarding the consideration received by the appellants from the company. A second show cause notice was issued for the same service, invoking an extended period. The Tribunal noted that the law does not permit issuing demands multiple times for the same service, from the same assessee, for the same period. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the impugned show cause notice was not sustainable.

The Tribunal heard both parties, considered submissions, and reviewed the records. It was observed that the present show cause notice was for the same service provided by the same appellant, for which an earlier notice had been adjudicated. Additionally, the present notice was issued invoking an extended period. The Tribunal emphasized that demanding tax for the same service, from the same assessee, for the same period more than once is impermissible under the law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that multiple demands for the same service, from the same assessee, for the same period are not permissible under the law. The Tribunal found the impugned show cause notice unsustainable and set aside the Order-in-Appeal, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.