9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 441 - AT - Service TaxValidity of second SCN - demand on same issue and period but under different head - Held that - The demand involved in the SCN in the present case already stand dropped by the Commissioner in order dated 15.10.07, therefore, the demand in the present case even though under the different head would not survive - In the case of Siddharth Tubes Ltd. 2004 (3) TMI 199 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , this Tribunal held that second SCN on the same issue and period after gathering additional/information/material fresh notice on different norms cannot be issued, when one has already been issued earlier - demand not sustainable. Tour operator service - scope of definition - inclusion of amount related to hotel booking charges in the definition - Held that - The arrangement for accommodation was incorporated in the definition of Tours Operator from 10.09.04, therefore, the demand for the period prior to 10.09.04 on the hotel booking charges is not sustainable - the demand for the period prior to 10.09.04 set aside - However demand pertaining to the period from 10.09.04 is upheld. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Validity of multiple SCNs for the same service and period. 2. Classification of service under different heads. 3. Legal sustainability of demands raised under different heads. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged an order where the demand confirmed by the Original Authority was upheld while the appellant's appeal was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant received two Show Cause Notices (SCNs) for the same service and period, with one SCN relating to 'Vehicle Hire Charges' and the other to 'Rent-a-Cab Service'. The demand under 'Vehicle Hire Charges' was dropped earlier. The appellant contested the demands of Rs. 2,15,405/- under 'Rent-a-Cab Service', Rs. 17,968/- under 'Tour Operator', and Rs. 16,250/- under 'Management Consultancy Services'. 2. The appellant argued that since the demand of Rs. 2,15,405/- was previously dropped in an earlier SCN, it cannot be confirmed in the second SCN. The Tribunal noted that re-raising the dropped demand would amount to a review of the earlier order, which was not challenged by the Revenue. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that raising the same demand twice for the same period is not permissible. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 2,15,405/- under 'Rent-a-Cab Service' was set aside. 3. Regarding the demand of Rs. 17,968/- under 'Tour Operator', the Tribunal found that charges related to hotel bookings were not covered under the definition of 'Tour Operator' before 10.09.04. As the definition was amended to include accommodation arrangements from that date, the demand for the period before 10.09.04 was set aside, while the demand from 10.09.04 onwards was upheld. The demand of Rs. 16,250/- under 'Management Consultancy Services' was accepted as the appellant did not contest it. 4. In conclusion, the impugned order was modified, setting aside the demand under 'Rent-a-Cab Service' and for the period before 10.09.04 under 'Tour Operator', while upholding the demand for the subsequent period under 'Tour Operator'. The demand under 'Management Consultancy Services' was upheld as not contested. The appeal was partly allowed as per the detailed findings of the Tribunal.
|
