9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the purpose of furnishing certain materials. However, the nature of such materials is not placed before this Court. Be that as it may the reason assigned for non-appearance on 31-12-2013, prima facie appears to be genuine in the absence of any rebuttal for the same. Considering the above fact and also the contention that the assessee has already paid a sum of ₹ 83,44,454/- out of the total demand, we deem it appropriate that the assessee should be given an opportunity to place all the materials before the Tribunal. It also appears that the Department representative who appeared before the Tribunal had not placed before the Tribunal, the amounts paid by the assessee prior to the issuance of the show cause notice as claimed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led an application for stay of the Order-in-Original dated 31-1-2012 for waiver of pre-deposit and interest. When the application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 31-12-2013 none appeared for the assessee and in the absence of any application for adjournment, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the Authorised Representative of the Department and having noted that the case was adjourned, earlier on several occasions, directed the appellant to pre-deposit a sum of ₹ 59,09,543/- being the entire amount of service tax demanded. 3. Challenging the said order, the assessee is before this Court and seeks admission of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raising the following substantial questions of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht the counsel was under the impression there was no sitting of the Tribunal and the assessee s case has not been posted for hearing. The assessee would further contend that out of the total demand, they had paid a sum of ₹ 33,44,454/- prior to investigation and the balance amount as per the show cause notice was ₹ 59,09,543/- and further a sum of ₹ 12,00,364/- was paid subsequently and this has been appropriated. Therefore, the assessee would contend that in all they have paid a sum of ₹ 95,44,818/- out of the total service tax demand of ₹ 1,42,53,997/- which according to the assessee works out to 75% of the demand. It is further contended that the appellant had paid service tax on the flats sold to third part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
