SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
ST – As for same period, proceedings had already commenced against respondent through SCN in July, 2005, there was no need to issue another SCN in July, 2007 - Revenue's appeal dismissed: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 02, 2014: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

Your belief that the department has all the time in the world to indulge in issuing frolicsome SCNs and filing frivolous appeals would be strengthened upon going through the facts of this case. It is another thing that the departmental officers get paid for what they do but it is the assessee who has to hire Consultants and Advocates to attend to these!

Read further -

ASCN 24.07.2005 was issued to the respondent for the period April 2002 to October 2003 on the premise that the respondent had collected service tax but not deposited with the department in due time and, therefore, they are liable to pay interest.

The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of interest and also imposed penalty.

Another SCN came to be issue on 03.10.2007 for the same period i.e. April 2002 to October 2003 demanding service tax along with interest and penalty.

The adjudicating authority, without appreciating that an earlier SCN for the same period & concerning the same issue had already been decided upheld the charges leveled.

Aggrieved, the said order was challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner (A)who held - that the show-cause notice dated 24.07.2005 is on the same issue wherein it was proposed that as the respondent delayed in making the payment, interest and imposition of penalty was also proposed. Therefore, for the same period, for the same demand, another show-cause notice dated 03.10.2007 is not sustainable, hence the same is void and illegal.

This should have been the end of the matter.

But, the Revenue, it seems, was aggrieved with this order and, therefore, an appeal was filed before the CESTAT.

The AR submitted – both the show-cause notices are for different course of action. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.

The CESTAT observed –

“6. On perusal of the records, I find that in the show-cause notice dated 24.07.2005 the only allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has paid the service tax with a delay. Therefore, demand of interest and a penalty was also proposed for the period from April 2002 to October 2003. In the show-cause notice date d03.10.2007 also the demand is for the same period from April 2002 to October 2003, and the allegation is that the respondent has not paid the service tax in time. On perusal of the annexure to the show-cause notice, it appears that there is no short payment made by the respondent. In these circumstances, as there is no short payment of service tax, the show-cause notice dated 03.07.2007 was not required to be issued as for the same period, proceedings against the respondent has already been commenced through a show-cause notice dated 24.07.2005.”

Holding that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner(A), the same was upheld and the Revenue appeal was DISMISSED.

(See 2014-TIOL-915-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST