9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice required the appellants to respond, inter alia, to the demand of the Revenue under the following heads:- "9. The said assessee is, therefore, required to show cause to the Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata, 3rd Floor, Central Excise & Service Tax Bhawan, E.M. Bypass, 180, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of this notice as to why:- (a) the amount of Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 3,52,57,141/- (Rupees Three Crores fifty two lacs fifty seven thousand one hundred and forty one only)Education Cess of Rs. 7,05,143/- (Rupees Seven lacs five thousand one hundred and forty three only) and S.H.E. Cess of Rs. 3,52,572/- (Rupees Three lacs fifty two thousand five hundred and seven two only) totalling to Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon the said assessee for wilful suppression of taxable value realized by the said assessee and for violation of the above mentioned provisions of the said Act and the said Rules; 10. Shri Kushal Maitra, Director is also required to show cause before the Commissioner of Service Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax Bhawan, 3rd Floor, 180 Rajdanga Main Road, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700017 within 30(thirty) days of receipt of this notice as to why penalty in terms of Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944 should not be imposed on him for all the aforesaid acts of omission or commission of the assessee resulting in evasion of Service Tax." The total demand was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he second adjudication proceeding was that the points decided against the appellant were beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The learned First Court dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, holding: "The applicability of the section under which the petitioners have been charged is not substantiated to be incorrect. Although there are differences between Section 73A and Section 73 of the Act of 1994, the assessee was well aware of the charges levelled against it. The assessee had answered the charges. The objections were duly considered and negated in the impugned order." Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that his clients had enjoyed an interim order of stay during the pendency of the writ petition. Moreover, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
