2009 (6) TMI 400 - AT - Service Tax

Double demand - Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings in respect of demand on the ground that the said amount already covered by the total demand in another show cause notice and such demand confirmed Impugned revision order confirming demand of the same amount again - It is revealed from the impugned order of the Commissioner that the amount in question has already been included in other proceedings wherein the Tribunal upheld the demand of tax and set aside the penalty. Amount in present case already included in demand confirmed by tribunal - the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is set aside. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise is restored. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Contention regarding demand of tax already covered by another show cause notice.
2. Review of Adjudication order under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Commissioner's decision despite pending appeal in a similar case at CESTAT.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the contention raised by the Chartered Accountant that the demand of tax amounting to Rs. 2,25,683/- was already covered by a total demand in another show cause notice dated 25-6-2004. The Joint Commissioner had confirmed a demand of duty against the said notice, which included the amount in question. The Commissioner reviewed the Adjudication order and confirmed the demand along with penalty and interest. However, it was argued that the amount had already been covered in a previous proceeding.

2. The Commissioner's decision to confirm the demand of tax and impose penalty was challenged on the grounds that the same amount was already included in a previous Adjudication Order dated 30-11-2005. The Commissioner observed the need to decide the case despite a pending appeal at CESTAT in a similar matter where the demand of tax was upheld, but penalties were set aside. The Tribunal's Final Order upheld the demand of tax and set aside the penalties, indicating that the amount in question had already been addressed in previous proceedings.

3. Considering the overlap in the amounts involved in different proceedings and the Tribunal's decision in a similar case, the Commissioner's order was set aside. The Assistant Commissioner's original order was restored, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed. This decision was made in light of the fact that the amount in question had already been dealt with in previous proceedings, leading to the conclusion that the Commissioner's decision was not sustainable.

This judgment highlights the importance of consistency and coherence in tax adjudication processes and the need to avoid duplicative actions when addressing similar issues across different proceedings.