9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice and on that ground alone the demand confirmed cannot be sustained. The notice for demand was issued on 03.08.2010 covering the period of 01.01.2008 to 15.05.2008. Admittedly, the demand is a repeat demand in continuation of earlier demands on the same set of facts. It is by now a well settled principle of law that repeat show cause notices with same set of facts and legal position cannot be issued invoking suppression, fraud etc. to sustain a demand for extended period. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/1837-1840/2011-CU[DB] - ST/A/55913-55916/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Jatin Mahajan, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice in confirming the service tax under entirely a new tax entry which was not proposed in the notice. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal vide Final Order No.53143/2017 dated 26.04.2017 in appellant s own case wherein, it was held that the leased circuit service can only be provided by Telegraph authority . When the proposal is made under such category, the confirmation of demand cannot be made in entirely new category. 4. Regarding appeal No.ST/1837/2011, the ld. Counsel submitted that the period involved is April 2005 to November, 2005 and the tax liability of transaction charges have been decided in their favour by the Tribunal in LSE Securities Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana 2013 (29) S.T.R. 591 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find force in the submissions made by the ld. Counsel that the impugned order travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice and on that ground alone the demand confirmed cannot be sustained. 8. The proceedings involved in appeal No.ST/1837/2011 are for the period April 2005 to November, 2005 and are covered by the decision of the Tribunal in LSE Securities Ltd. (supra) , wherein the appellant also is one of the party. The Tribunal held in favour of the appellant on merit, as well as on time bar. Accordingly, this appeal on the same set of fact is to be allowed. 9. Regarding appeal No.ST/1838/2011, we note that the notice for demand was issued on 03.08.2010 covering the period of 01.01.2008 to 15.05.2008. Admittedly, the deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
