9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an ex parte order was passed for a demand of service tax of Rs. 63,73,330/- for the period between 2005 and 2010; with interest. Penalties were also imposed. The assessee, the appellant herein, was before the Tribunal against the ex parte order. The appellant pleaded ignorance of provisions of law. The Tribunal specifically queried him; but the appellant did not reply as to why the show cause notice was not responded to or why there was absence for personal hearing; both of which were admitted. However, considering the plea of the learned Counsel who appeared for the appellant before the Tribunal that the appellant is illiterate and did not get proper advise, the Tribunal despite the stiff opposition from the Revenue, directed the matter t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained a certified copy and complied with the condition imposed. We find the explanation for non compliance of the condition directed and the delay in challenging the order to be not satisfactory. We also do not find any reason to interfere with Annexure-C order, especially in the context of the Tribunal having directed only remittance of less than one-fourth of the amounts demanded. 4. The learned Counsel also has a contention that when the Tribunal directed deposit of the amounts which may be due, there is a ground of pre-judging the issue and pre-empting the original authority in deciding as to whether there is a liability at all or not. The learned Counsel also relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (2015) 15 SCC 659 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue diligence". We essentially notice that in the instant case the assessee cannot be termed to have acted with diligence. The assessee did not respond to the show-cause, failed to appear for personal hearing and challenged the order on grounds of ignorance of law. Then when the Tribunal allowed fresh consideration on terms, the condition imposed was not complied. The assessee now challenge the terms imposed as onerous and unreasonable after about three years when the liability of interest would have doubled or tripled the demand as applicable at this point, if an imposition is made. Further as noticed above the Supreme Court had directed deposit of about 1/3rd of the amount in the plaint claim. Here the Tribunal directed payment of less th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
