2014 (8) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Rs. 45,55,995/- towards service tax and education cess from the appellant for the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2008. It had also imposed equal amount of penalty on the assessee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). Separate penalties were also imposed on them under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter passed Order-in-Appeal No. 15/2010 dated 2-8-2010 giving partial relief to the appellant. Accordingly, the demand of service tax was reduced to Rs. 23,04,024/- (education cess included) and the quantum of penalty under Section 78 of the Act was also reduced likewise. The penalty under Section 76 of the Act was dropped. S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... against them on the ground of lack of evidence. When the assessee's appeal came up before the Commissioner (Appeals), they were permitted to produce the remaining work orders as additional evidence and it was on the basis of this additional evidence that the appellate authority granted partial relief to the assessee. The main challenge in the present appeal of the Revenue is directed against this action of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is submitted that the additional evidence was allowed to be adduced at the appellate stage without sufficient reasons. It is submitted that the assessee could have adduced such evidence before the original authority which had given sufficient opportunity to them. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to take a decision as to whether the evidence can be allowed to be brought on record. The appellate authority has to record its reasons also. In case the evidence is admitted, an opportunity has to be given to the adjudicating authority or an officer authorized by it to rebut such evidence. None of these things happened in the present case. It appears, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) chose to admit the work orders produced by the assessee as additional evidence without any application of the assessee, without recording reasons for admitting the evidence and without giving any opportunity to the Department to rebut the evidence. This action of the appellate authority is clearly in breach of Rule 5 ibid. For this sole reason, we have to s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X