9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrangement between the parties concerned or copies of the invoices or details of payment of service tax by the principal courier considering the certificates produced from M/s. United Business Xpress India Pvt. Ltd. and Professional International Couriers Pvt. Ltd., the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The Tribunal rightly rejected the plea of the appellant to look into those documents at interim stage as they could be looked into only at the time when the appeal is finally heard. In such circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is confirmed. - Decided against assessee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 659 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the taxable Business support service and confirmed the demand accordingly? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in refusing to consider the time-bar issue, which as per the statutory provisions and the settled law is dependent, on the conscious or deliberate intention held by an assessee to evade service tax and not on whether the consideration was received as a co-loader or otherwise, particularly when the very same bench has taken the view in the case of one Professional International Courier (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chennai-II reported in 2013 (31) S.T.R. 561 (Tri.-Chennai) that the non-payment of service tax for the interregnum period based on Board Circular would render the demand barred by limitation? 4. Whether the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter for de novo consideration on the ground that the appellant has not proved by producing documents to show that they are mere agent of the principal courier and with a view to afford reasonable opportunity to the appellant, the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority. 5. The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the materials placed, passed an order dated 27-12-2012 confirming the demand of ₹ 59,20,783/- as service tax for the period 1-5-2006 to 22-8-2007. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal and sought for stay of the order as well as waiver of pre-deposit. 6. After considering the submissions made by the appellant, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Professional International Courier (P) Ltd. (cited supra), the appellant therein had produced all the documents to substantiate the nature of service rendered by them. Admittedly in spite of opportunity granted to the appellant herein, no document was produced except for letter/certificate. The Tribunal, while considering the letter dated 29-10-2012 and 1-11-2012 pointed out that the amounts said to be paid by the appellant as per the said letter was far short of the disputed value of service tax. Further it is seen that certain fresh documents were produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly rejected the plea of the appellant to look into those documents at interim stage as they could be looked into only at the time wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
