9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate Oral order: Per D.N. Patel, J.: 1. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside all four notices dated 9th May, 2012 which are at Annexure2 series, out of which one issued to service recipient, another is to JUSCO, third to Axis Bank and 4th to Bank of Baroda mainly for the reason that these notices were issued in pursuance of show cause notice passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur signed on 29th July, 2011. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this show cause notice has been adjudicated upon by the Additional Commissioner and he passed an order on 30.07.2012 thereafter, the said order was challenged before the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents (at page8) and therefore, at this stage, Annexure2 series notice may not be quashed and set aside. 5. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby, quash and set aside all the four notices dated 9th May, 2012 which are at Annexure2 series out of which one is issued to the service recipient, 2nd to JUSCO, 3rd to Axis Bank and 4th to Bank of Baroda mainly for following facts and reasons: (i) Respondents had issued show cause notice to this petitioner dated 20/29th July, 2011 under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the payment of the service tax, totaling to ₹ 49,90,780/. (ii) Thereafter, the said show cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited by this petitioner before the government with equal amount of penalty and further ₹ 20,000/maximum or ₹ 200/per day for delay, in submission of the record, was also imposed. Thus, the total liability comes to ₹ 33 lakhs as per the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax. (v) Thus, the notice issued at Annexure 2 series all dated 9th May, 2012 are not sustainable because they were based upon the order which is now quashed and set aside. (vi) It is submitted by the counsels for the both the sides that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur dated 28th October, 2014 (Annexure6) has been challenged by this petitioner as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
