9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice and if in spite of the opportunity, the appellant does not file the reply, the Commissioner will be at liberty to decide the case on the basis of documents available on record - appeal disposed off - matter on remand. - ST/23482/2014-DB - 20002/2017 - Dated:- 2-1-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri M.S. Nagaraj, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri Mohammed Yusuf, AR, For the Respondent Per: S.S Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 3,45,87,741/- (Rupees Three Crores Forty Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty One only) being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Crores Seventy Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand and Eighty only) thereby there was a difference of ₹ 20,65,64,557/- (Rupees Twenty Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Seven only). The appellant was asked to clarify the difference but the appellant did not file the reply. Subsequently the appellant vide letter dated 26.11.2012 informed the Department that Income Tax and CBI departments have seized the hard disk and the other documents pertaining to their company and requested for grant of time. Even after the lapse of two months, no reply was filed. Since the assessee did not furnish the Balance Sheet for the year 2009-10 onwards, same was called from the assessee and there were discrepancies in the Balance She ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the appellant could not file reply to the show-cause notice because the records pertaining to the company were seized by the Department of Income Tax and the CBI. He further submitted that the appellant informed the adjudicating authority vide letter dated 15.11.2013, 08.01.2014, 10.02.2014 and 05.03.2014 that the appellant company was being investigated by the CBI with regard to territorial dispute of the mining limits with NMDC and the documents had been seized by the CBI and hence sought time for submission of the reply to the show-cause notice. It was also intimated that both the Managing Director and the CEO of the appellant-company were in CBI custody since 05.06.2013. The State Government of Karnataka vide order dated 26.07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen no reply was filed in spite of sufficient opportunity given to them, the learned Commissioner did not have the option except to decide the case on the basis of available record. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the impugned order, we are of the considered view that this matter needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner with a direction to decide the case after complying the principles of natural justice and offer one more opportunity to the appellant to file the reply to the show-cause notice and if in spite of the opportunity, the appellant does not file the reply, the Commissioner will be at liberty to decide the case on the basis of documents available on record. In view of this, we set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
