9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A.No.2136 of 2014 is filed as against the order dated 04.02.2014 in Final Order No.40063 of 2014 for non-compliance of pre-deposit ordered by the Tribunal in the Miscellaneous Application on 27.11.2013. 3. The appellant herein is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing the services of transportation of goods by road, steamer agent services, manpower recruitment or supply agency services as well as services in connection with the import/export of goods. On 19.4.2010, the appellant was issued with a show cause notice bearing No.267 of 2010 by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai demanding service tax of Rs. 4,36,60,430/- for the period 2004-05 to December, 2008 together with interest and penalty. Thereafter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) The amount of penalty shall, however be reduced to 25% of the Service Tax determined, if only the service tax and interest determined is paid along with reduced penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order in terms of proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; and v) I do not propose to impose any penalty under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994." 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.11.2013, held as follows: "7. Considering the submissions of both sides, and taking into account the financial hardships as the applicant-company ceased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also submits that the appellant had stopped their operations due to recession in the business and therefore they did not appear in the adjudication proceedings. Hence, the order of the Tribunal may be set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. Admittedly, the appellant had received the show cause notice on 21.4.2010 issued by the jurisdictional commissioner demanding service tax. It is not in dispute that the appellant had not responded to the said notice. Subsequently, the appellant was called upon for personal hearing on 15.11.2011. However, by letter dated 14.11.2011, the appellant sought time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le attempts to serve on the appellant. In any event, having received the show cause notice, it is the duty of the appellant to respond to the said notice. It is not in dispute that for the personal hearing fixed on 15.11.2011, the appellant had sent a letter on 14.11.2011, (copy of the letter has not been filed before this Court) seeking time to appear. This only shows that the appellant has knowledge about the proceedings. Hence, being aware of the proceedings, it is not now open to the appellant to come forward to say that notices have not been served on the appellant and there is violation of principles of natural justice. We reject the said plea. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following order: (i)We do not find any error i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
