9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts or identical evidences - demand is not barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed. - Central Excise Appeal No. 184 OF 2015 With Central Excise Appeal No. 185 OF 2015 With Central Excise Appeal No. 186 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2017 - MR. A. S. OKA AND MR. RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. For The Appellants : Mr. Rajan Mishra, i/b Mr. Mihir P. Deshmukh For The Respondents : Mr. M. Dwivedi, with Ms. Shalaka Gujar ORDER PC:- 1. It is not in dispute that the facts of these three Appeals are more or less similar. 2. These three Appeals take an exception to a common judgment delivered by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short Appellate Tribunal ). The Appellants in these three Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They have taken two pleas in support of this argument. The first plea is that there was a CESTAT decision in the case of Kuldeep Singh Gill dated 12th May 2005 which held that service tax was not payable on renting of cabs which was subsequently reversed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The second ground taken is that since two show cause notices have been issued prior to the impugned notices the department was aware of the activities of the appellant and hence the extended period of time could not have been invoked. 4. As learned counsel for the Appellants wanted to argue on various aspects in addition to issue of time bar, on the last date, we have granted time to the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants is that prior to service of show cause notices dated 8th September 2004, all the three Appellants were served with two show cause notices each in the year 2003. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that in case of Appellants in Central Excise Appeal No. 184 of 2015, one more show cause notice was served on 16th June 2004. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the earlier notices, by show cause notices dated 8th September 2004, the Revenue could not invoke extended period of time and hence, the demand made by the said notices were time barred. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. As far as Appellant in Central Excise Appeal No. 184 of 2015 is concerned, from paragraph 3 of the impugned j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 were for non-filing of the half yearly returns for the period from April 2003 to September 2003 and for recovery of service tax without specifying the demand. As a matter of fact, it is recorded that the show cause notices issued on 8th September 2004 were for recovery of service tax for the period from April 2000 to December 2002. 10. It is found on the basis of material on record by the Appellate Tribunal that the Appellants did not furnish information relating to consideration received in spite of four summonses issued on March 2003, November 2003, March 2004 and July 2004. The documents specified in the summonses were not produced and therefore, revenue was required to obtain details from I.P.C.L., Nagothane. After obtaining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
