9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority for deciding the issue afresh - Matter remitted back with order of pre deposit - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.162/2012 - Final Order No. A/75182/KOL/2014 - Dated:- 29-4-2014 - D M Misra and I P Lal, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri Radha Raman, Adv. For the Respondent : Sri S Misra, Additional Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: D M Misra: This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.12,56,70,490/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78, penalty under Section 76 (not quantified) and Rs.10,000/- penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate Shri Radha Raman for the applicant submits that the Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in the Court, he offers to deposit Rs.25.00 Lakhs and prayed that the case may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for re-consideration of all issues and evidences, which they have now produced before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the first show cause notice was issued to the applicant on the basis of documents that were available to the Department. In the said show cause notice, it has been specifically recorded that in spite of several reminders and summons to the noticee, they could not produce the complete data resulting into non-incorporation of entire service tax liability of the applicant, in the demand notice. He submits that subsequently, on receiving the relevant data, the department issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the appellant is that they were not supplied with the relevant documents on which the demand has been calculated in the SCN dated 15/04/2011. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Revenue that in spite of repeated summons issued to the applicants, they have not come forward with the data, resulting into issuance of two show cause notices for the same period involving different amount. Prima facie, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the appellant had not been serious from the date of issuance of the first SCN i.e. on 30th April, 2010 in responding to the allegations of the Department about short payment of service tax. During the course of hearing, before this forum, the Ld. Advocate has placed around 19 bundles of docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
