9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances - Held that: - There is no dispute about the fact that in respect of the same set of proceedings, an earlier SCN was issued under a different category of services. However, subsequently, with the introduction of Intellectual Property Service, being a taxable service, fresh proceedings were initiated by invoking the larger period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The service tax demand stands confirmed against the appellant for the period 2006 07 by raising a show cause notice dated 4.8.2008 under the category of Intellectual Property Right Service. 2. The appellant had strongly assailed the said confirmation even before the Commissioner (Appeals), on the point of limitation, by submitting that prior to the present show cause notice, proceedings we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no suppression of facts and hence extended period of time limit is not invocable in the instant case. I find that the issue pertaining to earlier period had not attained finality. The appellant had argued further that when the facts are known to the department there is no question of intimating the department about the payments made to the foreign service provider in ST 3 returns. Though the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they had suppressed the facts with an intention to evade payment of tax. Hence, I told that this is a clear case of suppression of facts and the lower adjudicating authority had rightly invoked the extended period of time. 4. As is seen from above, the appellate authority is disputing the fact that in respect of same agreement, a prior show cause notice was issue to them under the category o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. reported in 2006 (97) ELT 465 (SC) has categorically held that when the first show cause notice is issued, all the facts come to the knowledge of the Revenue, in which circumstances, subsequent show cause notices cannot be issued alleging suppression of facts on the part of the assessee. 6. By following such decision, we hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
