Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Nizam Sugar Factory Limited vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 18 March, 1998

Creative Infocity Ltd vs Ahmedabad-Iii on 5 November, 2024

4.14 Further, we agree with the learned chartered accountant that the decision of Nizam Sugar Factory applies squarely to this case and a subsequent show cause notices could not have been issued invoking extended period of limitation. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar (supra), the extended period of limitation is also not available to Revenue for subsequent show cause notices. In view of the above discussion, supported by various Apex Court judgments and considering the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the demand under extended period is not sustainable being time barred also apart from merit.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Central Goods And Service ... on 11 December, 2024

In para 9 of the said ruling, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the first show cause notice was issued, all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of authorities and that while issuing the second and third show cause notices, the same and similar facts would not be taken as suppression of fact on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. Therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in E/87430/2015, E/87068/2016 & E/88902/2018 13 respect of second and third show cause notices, there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. We note that in the above stated show cause notices dated 27.01.2016 and 22.12.2017 the same facts as that in show cause notice dated 30.01.2015 were stated and was stated that there were suppressions of fact. By following the ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (Supra), we hold that the other two show cause notices except show cause notice dated 30.01.2015 are not sustainable in law. We, therefore, hold that order-in-original dated 27.05.2016 which is arising out of show cause notice dated 27.01.2016 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. As a result, appeal No. E/87068/2016 is allowed. Similarly, order-in-original dated 31.05.2018 arising out of the said show cause notice dated 22.12.2017 is not sustainable and the same is set aside and appeal No. E/88902/2018 is allowed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assam State Transport Corporation vs Guwahati on 22 March, 2024

6. We observe that the appellant raised the issue of limitation and contended that extended period cannot be invoked in this case to demand service tax. We observe that a Show Cause Notice has already been issued to the appellant on the same issue of 6 Appeal No.: ST/75051/2014-DB implementation of Private Owned Buss Scheme, 2001 and a demand has already been raised under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' . Thus, the department is well aware of the activities of acquiring buses by the appellant from private operators for carrying passengers. Now, Notice has been again issued for the same activity under various categories of taxable service such as "Business Support Service, Renting on immovable properties and providing time & space for Advertisement service, by invoking the extended period. We observe that the appellant has been filing returns regularly and the activities of appellant is well within the knowledge of the department. Accordingly, we hold that the department at this stage cannot claim wilful suppression of fact intending evade payment of service tax on the part of the appellant and raise the demand again by invoking extended period, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of C.Ex, A.P.[2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.)]. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned Order is not sustainable on the grounds of limitation.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahtriya Chemicals And Fertilizers Ltd vs Mangalore-Cus on 2 April, 2024

2.4 The learned counsel further submits that the appellant is the manufacturer and distributor of the fertilizers having License under Fertilizers Control Order. The impugned product Muriate of Potash is sold to the farmers and the society of the farmers as a fertilizer and therefore, the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied. Lastly, there is no suppression of facts or misdeclaration that is brought on record in the first notice dated 16.11.2012 issued by invoking the normal period and the reply dated 17.08.2012 was filed but however, the notice was kept in abeyance. The second notice which is the impugned notice was issued on 22.03.2013, almost after 19 months by invoking the extended period under Section 28(1) read with Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The second show-cause notice is barred by limitation and relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of C.E. A.P.:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1