9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis which need appreciation of the returns and other related documents. Hence it is not deemed appropriate to decide the plea of limitation without appreciation of the documentary evidence which has been produced by the appellant at this stage before the Tribunal. The said documents need to be appreciated by the original adjudicating authority itself. Both the parties otherwise have acknowledged consents for remanding back the matter. It is deemed proper that the original adjudicating authority shall decide the show cause notice afresh after giving the appropriate findings with respect to the allegations of suppression and misrepresentation and thus about the invocation of extended period of limitation. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty had considered the appellant as a pure agent, accordingly, has dropped the demand of Rs.9,01,16,183/-. However demand for service tax of Rs.1,55,90,415/- is still confirmed for want of requisite evidence for the Financial Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 has been dropped. 2. we have heard Shri Abhas Mishra, learned Advocate for the assessee and Shri Rajeev Kapoor, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the show cause notice is absolutely barred by limitation. The merits of the matter need not to be looked into as the show cause notice stands vitiated for want of not complying with the principles of limitation. Learned counsel has submitted that it is nowhere denied that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d qua the entire amount of demand. However, the actual invoices and other relevant documents are mentioned to be available with the assessee who has requested time to produce the same on record. It is submitted that in light of those documents remaining demand as confirmed is not sustainable. Order under challenge is therefore prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submissions learned Departmental Representative has mentioned that though there is no denial about regular filing of service tax returns by the appellant but there are noticed differences in the service tax returns submitted by the assessee and the returns which were downloaded from ACES. Hence, it was the case of suppression. The orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,23,695/- as gross value and Rs. 5,47,34,546/- as value of pure agent. Value of pure agent is Rs. 8,74,65,659/- and the value of pure agent in ST-3 received from the assessee is Rs. 11,27,59,067/-. In this regard, it appears that the information given by the complainant along with documentary evidence is not matching with the ST-3 Returns filed by the assessee. 12. Also, in the year 2011-12 (Oct-Mar), gross amount in the ST-3 Return submitted by complainant is Rs. 62,79,04,453/- and gross amount in ST-3 Return submitted by the party is Rs. 61,82,49,784/-. ST-3 Return downloaded from the ACES is showing Rs.63,40,98,000/- as gross value and Rs.4,69,93,576/- as value of pure agent. Value of pure agent in the forged and altered ST-3 Return is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
