9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r failure to pay the duty. The reasons cited would make it appear that the invoking of section 78 in the notice had no justification at all. If that were so, the resort to extended period for confirming tax liability is without basis. There is an apparent contradiction here. We also notice that noticee had made only partial payment of admitted tax liability. Considering the lacunae in the impugned order and that remedying of these lacunae will require re-examination of the submission of the noticee with reference to documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded back to the original authority for fresh consideration of all aspects. As the matter has been pending in adjudicatory and appeal process for almost s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g works in various building projects, particularly those constructed by M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. In addition, he was also entrusted with disbursal of wages to staff employed by M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd for which he was paid 6% of the wage bill. Besides, M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd hired a vehicle from Ramanlal M Prajapti for all of which M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd paid him ₹ 8,94,26,119/- during the period in dispute. 5. Investigations revealed that during the period from 16th June 2005 to 2008-09, Ramanlal M Prajapati received income of ₹ 10,80,75,978/- of which Revenue determined the value of taxable services to be R. 9,62,61,036 with liability of ₹ 1,14,14,942/- as tax. 6. Having heard side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r no. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23rd August 2007 of Central Board of Excise & Customs should have been preceded by adducing of reasons. The decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh in Sew Infrastructure Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur [2015 (37) STR 984 (Chhatisgarh)] and of this Tribunal in Jac Air Services Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2013 (31)STR 155 (Tri-Del)], Viral Builders v Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat [2011 (21) STR 457 (Tri-Ahmd)], and Oikos v Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III [2007 (5) STR 229 (Tri-Bang)] have explicitly dealt with the eligibility for escapement on the basis of the instruction supra. That lack is required to be remedied. 10. We also observe that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
