9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assesse liable to the service tax on various services. Waiver of pre-deposit - The assesse would not be able to make out a prima facie case of total waiver of dues adjudged against them - the applicant had pleaded financial hardship but no documentary evidence had been placed - he was ordered to deposit 25% of the service tax – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – stay granted. - Appeal No.-406/2010 - Stay Order No. S/162/KOL/2013 - Dated:- 17-4-2013 - DR. D.M.MISRA AND DR. I.P.LAL, JJ. For the Appellant: Sri Kartik Kurmy, Advocate Anand Jaluka, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri S. Misra, Addl. Commr. (A.R.) ORDER Per DR.D.M. MISRA; This is an application seeking waiver of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scope of the SCN. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the services against which the Ld. Commr. has confirmed the demand had never been rendered by them. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Annex Vs. Comr. Of Central Excise, Bolpur vide order No. S-1424/Kol/12 dated 31/10/12. 3. Per contra the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that though the applicant rendered services from 2004-05 but registration with the Department made only in August, 2007. Initially on scrutiny of their bank statement and few sample work orders, the SCN was issued alleging evasion of service tax totaling to Rs.3,20,56,701/-. In response to the said SCN, the applicant had furnished a detailed reply stating various work orders issued to them in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission. Ld. Commr. after detailed scrutiny brought down the demand from Rs. To Rs. 2.07 crores. Also we do not find merit in the argument of the Ld. Advocate that the Ld. Commr. has travelled beyond the scope of the SCN as rebutting the charges the detailed work orders were submitted by them and after analyzing those work orders, the Commissioner has come to a conclusion that the services mentioned in those work orders were rendered . Prima facie we are of the view that since the services were held to be taxable by the Ld. Commissioner after recording his reasons, it would not be correct to say that the applicant had submitted the jurisdiction about classification of services claimed by them in the SCN as non-taxable. The services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices received by the applicant were taxable under various categories and accordingly confirmed the demand. Thus, prima facie we are of the view that the applicant had themselves submitted to the jurisdiction of the Ld. Commissioner about determination of the taxability of the services rendered by them as narrated in the respective work orders. Hence Prima facie, we find that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not passed the order beyond the de horse record. The services rendered by the applicant whether taxable or otherwise, would be examined at the time of disposal of the appeal. Even though the Ld. Advocate had pleaded financial hardship but no documentary evidence could be placed before us to substantiate the said claim. Thus keeping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
