Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri K.R. Venkatachalam vs Cce, Coiimbatore on 10 February, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI
ST/42477/2013
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.128/2013 ST dated 2409.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals, Salem]
Shri K.R. Venkatachalam Appellant
Versus
CCE, Coiimbatore Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S. Murugappan, C.A. For the Appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Dates of Hearing /Decision: 10.02.2016 FINAL ORDER No. 40524 / 2016 Per P.K.Choudhary Shri K.R Venkatachalam is the appellant herein.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under.
M/s BSNL had issued a tender for supply of motor vehicles for hire. The appellant had participated in the sa in terms of Rule 2 (lid tender and turned out to be the successful bidder in the said tender. As per the conditions stipulated in the Tender, an agreement was executed between the appellant and BSNL, the contract was to provide vehicle to M/s BSNL and in return thereof, the appellant was paid hiring charges.
3. A show cause notice dated 21.04.2008 was issued to the appellant demanding a sum of Rs.96,642/- for the period April 2005 to December 2005. The reply dated 10.5.2008 was filed by the appellant, contesting the demand mainly on limitation. The appellant was issued with a previous show cause notice in C.No.V/CAB/15/10/2006-ST-Adj dated 17.04.2006 for the period from September 2004 to March 2005 on an identical issue. The reply sent by the appellant culminated in process of adjudication over further appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) resulted in both confirmation of demand and levy of penalty paving way for filing of the present appeal before this Forum.
4. Heard both sides in the matter.
5. The appellant was represented by Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate and the respondent was represented by Ms. Indira Sisupal, the Learned AR (AC). The short point for consideration in this appeal is, when there is a previous proceeding which has resulted in passing of orders by this Tribunal whether the subsequent show cause notice can invoke extended period. The answer to the same is an emphatic No. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs Collector of Central Excise, A.P reported in 2008 (9) STR 314 (SC) held that when the first show cause notice was issued, all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities and the subsequent show cause notice cannot be issued by alleging suppression of facts.
6. Respectfully following the judgment delivered by the Honble Supreme Court of India, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative part of the order dictated in the open Court) (P.K. CHOUDHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER BB 1