9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to OCA were well known to the Department prior to the SCN dt. 21.04.2009, the extended period therefore, could not have been invoked in the third SCN. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/383/2012 - Final Order No. 60645/2017 - Dated:- 5-4-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Ashok Dhingra, Advocate and Ms. Sonia Gupta, CAfor the Appellant Sh. G.M. Sharma, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case leading up to this appeal are that the appellant was issued show cause notice on 21.04.2009 demanding the Service Tax of ₹ 1,26,99,109/- along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties and examined the records. 6. On the first plea of the appellant that there is an overlap in the periods in the show cause notices, we find that there is substance in the appellant s claim because the first show cause notice was issued on 17.08.2007 invoking the extended period of five years and ground in the show cause notice was commission paid to the OCA on account of export sales. In the second show cause notice dt. 27.09.2007 which was also on the same ground, the extended period was correctly not invoked. The present show cause notice which is also for recovery of Overseas commission credit to the OCA has been issued invoking the extended period from 2004-2005 to 2007-2008. The only new thing in the show cause notice dt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also observed that the Noticee in their reply to show cause notice have just reiterated their submissions and have not adduced any documents or details to controvert the allegations that OCAs are their associated enterprises. 7. We also note that the notification pertaining to associated enterprises was issued on 10.05.2008 and the entire period in the present show cause notice dt. 21.04.2009 is prior to that date. In that background, the Department had no support in law to issue such a show cause notice alleging transaction between associated enterprises. We therefore hold that the show cause notice dt. 21.04.2009 could not invoke the allegation of associated enterprises when the law at the time did not provide for the same and the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
