9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. Advocate agreed upon since the said order referred to by the lower appellate authority in OISP No. 24/2013(M-IV) dated 07.02.2013 is non-existent; even if it is in existence, the same cannot be made applicable to the appellant since the very first date of hearing itself is in October i.e., 08.10.2013 - thus, the impugned dismissal order by the first appellate authority can never sustain, There is no discussion on merits and hence, it is deemed proper to restore the case back to the file of the first appellate authority for passing a de novo order on merit alone. It goes without saying that the first appellate authority shall adhere to the principles of natural justice thereby affording reasonable and time-bound opportunities to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely consumed/merged with the services that were exported and that when the service gets consumed in part or in toto for providing services in India, Service Tax would be leviable on the secondary service provider. It was thus proposed in the Show Cause Notice to demand Rs.14,60,984/- by invoking the extended period of limitation within the meaning of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 towards Service Tax and Education Cess covering the above period, apart from appropriate interest under Section 75 ibid. and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 ibid. 2. It appears that the appellant filed a detailed reply denying their liability, primarily contending that they had only provided manpower supply services to M/s. Babcock Bors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f manpower to M/s. BBSL. 4. The appellant appears to have filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the demands confirmed in the Order-in-Original. The first appellate authority has, however, vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 323/2013 (M-ST) dated 31.10.2013 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the condition of stay granted vide OISP No. 24/2013(M-IV) dated 07.02.2013. 5. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 6.1 Heard Shri T.R. Ramesh, Ld. Advocate for the assessee-appellant. The Ld. Advocate would contend at the outset that the first appellate authority did not pass any order on the stay petition filed by the appellant and thus, there was nothing for the appellant to comply with an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no discussion on merits and hence, we deem it proper to restore the case back to the file of the first appellate authority for passing a de novo order on merit alone. It goes without saying that the first appellate authority shall adhere to the principles of natural justice thereby affording reasonable and time-bound opportunities to the appellant before passing the de novo order. The appellant is also directed to co-operate with the lower appellate authority in getting an early disposal of the first appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The matter pertains to the year 2003-05 and hence, we direct the first appellate authority to pass the de novo order within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of this Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
