9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td (hereinafter referred to as "IOCL") and such services are 'taxable services' under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 under the category 'Works Contract Service', 'Maintenance & Repair Service', 'Manpower Recruitment/Supply Service' and 'Cleaning Service'. It is the case of the Service Tax department that the Appellant have not filed their ST-3 returns on time and have not paid Service Tax on the entire consideration received from IOCL for the period impugned in the current proceeding. Thus, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant seeking payment of Service Tax on the entire value received from IOCL as per Form 26AS and Balance sheet for the impugned period by applying the highest rate of Service Tax and without describing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on any services and thus the entire demand of Rs.3,73,32,890/- came to be confirmed along with interest and equal penalty under section 77 of the Act was imposed as also late fee for delay in filing of ST-3 returns. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant is in Appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant has vehemently argued that the entire demand is barred by limitation as the Department had conducted review of its records based on IOCL Barauni details for FY 2010-11 and 2011-12 and the said order has attained finality wherein the entire demand was dropped by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Patna and the Department's appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed under National Litigation Policy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the value of taxable service as per Show Cause Notice and as per ST-3 returns submitted by the Appellant does not match and thus the difference has to be explained and is not reconciled. As regards the demand being time barred on the ground of limitation, the Ld. Authorized Representative stated that the facts of the earlier period of 2010-11 matter was as regards Service Tax collected but not paid by the Appellant whereas the current Show Cause was for non-payment of Service Tax and hence the question of Department being in the know-how of the Appellants modus operandi is not correct and the extended period was correctly invoked in the present case. The Ld. Authorized Representative also referred to judgments in this regard to different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the present Show Cause Notice is also based on the data collected by the Department during IOCL CERA audit for all contractors and basis the payments made by IOCL to various contractors, the demand has been raised in the impugned proceedings also. 12. At this juncture we would like to refer to the judgment of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise [2006 (197) ELT 465], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the first Show Cause Notice was issued, all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the Show Cause Notice for a subsequent period on the same issue, then the identical/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that case the further investigations had revealed new details, whereas in the present case both the notices are based on third party IOCL records and then comparing the same with 26AS data of the Appellant. Hence we cannot agree with the argument put forth by the Revenue that the judgment of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. We find that the ratio of the above judgments are squarely applicable in the instant case of the Appellant as the Appellant had been providing same services as was alleged in the earlier Show Cause Notice dated 22.05.2015 which was adjudicated in favour of the Appellant for the earlier period. It is not the case of the Department that there was any change in the natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Department during the course of arguments has also accepted that there is no difference in the value of services as per 26AS and as per the reconciliation statement provided by the Appellant in its submissions. The Ld. Authorized Representative in fact had sought time during the arguments to verify the documents as submitted by the Appellant and the reconciliation statements. We find from the Chartered Accountant's certificate that the entire value as per form 26AS has suffered tax to the extent of supplies taxable under forward charge and only GTA services provided by the Appellant has not suffered tax at the hands of the Appellant as the recipient was liable to pay Service Tax on the same. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
