9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to the subsequent adjudication and its effect on the parties. What is intended to place on record is that the issue of legality of service of second show-cause notice before the first one got adjudicated has been settled way back in 2007 by the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JALANDHAR VERSUS OSAKA ALLOYS AND STEELS PVT. LTD. [ 2007 (1) TMI 189 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH] and the same has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS OSAKA ALLOYS AND STEELS (P) LTD. [ 2007 (9) TMI 615 - SC ORDER] . There are no hesitation to give a finding that show-cause notice dated 24.12.2020 issued for the period from April, 2015 to March, 2016 proposing a demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 for agreeing to tolerate the act of its customers for not discharging their obligation on time, show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant by the DGGI for the period from July, 2012 to March, 2017 proposing payment of Service Tax of ₹16,47,07,800/- alongwith applicable interest and equal penalty that was adjudicated and decided in favour of the Appellant on 26.07.2023. Appellant had also received a second show-cause notice on dated 24.12.2020 for the period from April, 2015 to March, 2016 on the basis of differential amount, noticed while comparing Service Tax Returns with Income Tax Returns filed by the Appellant before those two Authorities, demanding Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble Supreme Court. He placed his reliance on the following decisions to support his stand. They are Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II Vs. Prince Gutka Ltd. Ors. 2015 (7) TMI 964 SC, Duncan Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2006 (8) TMI 185 SC, Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST 2023 (7) TMI 876 Jharkhand HC, Anglo French Textiles Vs. CESTAT Chennai 2018 (362) ELT 576 (Mad.). He further pointed out that the fact of existence of previous proceeding and pendency of show-cause notice issued by the DGGI was not only brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority but also he has noted the same in para 10.2 of his order while confirming duty, interest and penalty which is unsustainable in both law and facts apart from the fact that f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Leave Petition is dismissed on facts. The Punjab Haryana High Court in its impugned judgment-in-question had held that show cause notice dated 1-4-1998 under Rule 96ZP(1) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was issued for raising demand for duty. Another show cause notice dated 20-9-2001 was issued raising demand of duty in respect of same period once again the first show cause notice was not adjudicated, hence second show cause notice issued after four years is without jurisdiction and also time-barred. Appeal was dismissed by High Court as no substantial question of law arises from Tribunal s order. 6. Going by the judicial precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is the law of the land, we have got no hesitation to give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
