COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TA Vs. NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD UNIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is in appeal against the order of Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, for short, 'CESTAT' in so far as it confirms an issue relatable to a show cause notice dated 26/05/2009. Hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the respondent, we see, that, by and large, the consideration of that issue is confined to what is reflected in paragraph 7 of the impugned order of the Tribunal rendered on 19/09/2016 which reads as follows:-

(2.) On the basis of the submission by the learned counsel on behalf of the Revenue the following substantial question of law is formulated:

(3.) It is pointed out that the assessee was registered with the department on 10/04/2012. The first show cause notice dated 26/05/2009 related to the period from 10/09/2004 to 24/03/2008. One of the moot questions that would be relevant in such matters is as to whether the department could be attributed with knowledge of the transactions and the nature of activities of the assessee which could have led to the issuance of a show cause notice. The said issue of fact and different other issues which may be germane ought to have been considered on the facts of a given case. Even if the ratio of Nizam's Sugar case is to be applied, the authority concerned has to be satisfied that the facts of the instant case stand covered on issues of law relatable to the ratio of the precedent handed down in Nizam's case. This obviously means that the findings rendered in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, as quoted above, is sufficient enough to demonstrate that the ratio of Nizam's case has been applied apparently without appreciating the relevance of that decision to the facts of the case in hand. Taking stock of the entire issues which were considered by the Tribunal through the impugned order, we are of the view that ends of justice require a remand of all issues concerned, having regard to the conclusion arrived at the Tribunal.