9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were however not specified in the show cause notices. Mere extraction of the entire provisions of Section 65(19) of the Act does not fulfill the requirement - Show cause notices dated 21.4.2010 and 20.4.2011 are invalid. This infirmity is incurable; these show cause notices are therefore quashed. Since the adjudication order is the consequence of the invalid show cause notices, it is also quashed – Relying upon the judgment in the case of Kaur & Singh vs. C.C.E., New Delhi [1996 (11) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it has been held that the party to whom a show cause notice is issued must be made aware of the allegation against it and that this is a requirement of natural justice. Unless the assessee is put to such notice, he has no oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had provided Business Auxiliary Service and had failed to remit tax on amounts received for providing such service. Apart from impeaching the adjudication order on merits, ld. Counsel for the appellant urges a preliminary ground of challenge, namely, that the show cause notices were incoherent and did not spell out what relevant ingredients of the relevant statutory provision apply to the service provided , to warrant attribution of the liability; and since the initial step for initiation of proceedings leading to the adjudication order being unsustainable, the adjudication must fail, for violation of due process and transgression of principles of natural justice. 3. Both the show cause notices (covering different periods) are similarly ph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee had collected service tax from M/s Srinivasa Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Laxmi Distributors P. Ltd. and had remitted the tax so collected to Revenue but since M/s Adyar Gate Hotels had refused to pay the service tax component to the assessee, no service tax relatable to the services provided to Adyar Gate Hotels was remitted by the petitioner /assessee. 5. Para 8 which is critical for the contention urged on behalf of the appellant states that on the basis of foregoing 'discussions' it is apparent that the services provided by the parties (the assessee) to its customers amounts to the taxable Business Auxiliary Service as stipulated under Section 65(19) read with Section 65(105()(zzb) of the Act, since it appears to satisfy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts to manufacture of excisable goods. Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause, (a) commission agent means any person who acts on behalf of another person and causes sale or purchase of goods, or provision or receipt of services, for a consideration, and includes any person who, while acting on behalf of another person 7. Clearly, Business Auxiliary Service is defined to mean any of the activities enumerated in clauses (i) to (vi) or the residuary clause (vii). Each of the clauses (i) to (vi) are substantially distinct from each other. To illustrate, sub-clause (i) enumerates promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; and clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce as to the liability of the assessee under the precise provision in the Act, the demand was unsustainable. 10. Reference is also invited on behalf of the appellant, to the decision in Kaur & Singh vs. C.C.E., New Delhi -1997 (4) ELT 289 (SC). It is axiomatic that a show cause notice must communicate to the addressee the specific allegation/charge and the basis for the demand of tax. The Supreme Court stated that the party to whom a show cause notice is issued must be made aware of the allegation against it and that this is a requirement of natural justice. Unless the assessee is put to such notice, he has no opportunity to meet the case against him. There is no scope for assuming that the ground is implicit in the issuance of the show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 for violation of principles of natural justice, we consider it appropriate to grant liberty to Revenue to initiate proceedings afresh, by issuance a fresh show cause notice, clearly setting out the reasons, but in accordance with law. 13. Shri Ravinder Narain, ld. Counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the judgments in United Telecoms Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Hyderabad or in C.C.E. vs. HMM Ltd. 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 322 had granted no liberty to Revenue/the respondent therein to initiate proceeding afresh by issuance of a fresh show cause notice. Where however a show cause notice is invalided for violation of due process, and in particular violation of principles of natural justice, a fresh opportunity could be give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
