9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Technical) Shri S.K. Mittal, Advocate for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Heard the parties on Miscellaneous Application filed for early hearing of appeal and Miscellaneous Application is allowed and with the consent of both the parties appeal is taken up for hearing and decision. The present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Original No. 34-35/COMMR./GZB/2010 dated 11/01/2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Ghaziabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 17.03.2010 for the period from 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2008 wherein it was stated that the appellant was engag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. On page-24 of the said show cause notice, it was alleged that appellant appeared to have suppressed the value to taxable service rendered during the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09 and therefore proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was being invoked. On contest both the show cause notices were adjudicated together through the impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.01.2011 wherein the original authority ordered the merger of proceeding initiated through the show cause notice dated 17.03.2010 and the show cause notice dated 17.05.2010. After ordering the said merger of the said two show cause notices, original authority had confirmed the demand of ₹ 4,20,86,430/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts on the basis of which the said show cause notice dated 17.03.2010 was issued and as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Nijam Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Andhra Pradesh reported at 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC) wherein it is seated that the show cause notice for the extended period cannot be issued on the same facts if earlier show cause notice on the same facts has been issued. Therefore, he contended that the show cause notice dated 17.05.2010 is also not sustainable. 4. Heard the learned A.R. for Revenue, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, we do not wish to go into the merits of case. We accept the arguments p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
