9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the said vital details provided by the appellant and passed the order by confirming a huge demand whereas, as per the appellant s claim they have paid service tax in excess. In these circumstances, the Adjudicating Authority needs to reconsider the case on all the points particularly the recalculation of service tax paid by the appellant along with supporting documents. The impugned order is set aside - matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order on all the points. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. C. L. MAHAR , MEMBER TECHNICAL ) Shri Jigar Shah Shri Amber Kumarawat , Advocates for the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Samota , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 19.10.2012 vide letter dated 14.01.2013 wherein the Appellant had submitted that the Department had calculated the total value of services as Rs. 7,75,63,952/- for the relevant period based on the information provided by the staff of the Kandla Port Trust located at Vadinar which was factually incorrect. Therefore, the Appellant submitted a revised table which was prepared from the Annual Accounts of the Kandla Port Trust duly audited by the CAG showing the total value of services provided by the Appellant during the relevant period was Rs. 14,63,25,233/-. Out of the total value of services, services to the tune of Rs. 7,68,72,901/- were received in relation to lease of vacant land which was not taxable under Section 65 (105) (zzzz) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant had filed an appeal before this Tribunal. After considering the submissions made by both the parties, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority vide Order No. A/11116/2014 dated 18.06.2014. On remanding back, the Appellant furnished its submissions to the Principal Commissioner, Rajkot vide letter dated 12.02.2016, however, the same was not accepted by the learned Principal Commissioner. The submissions dated 12.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 were once again submitted before the learned Commissioner during the personal hearing dated 24.02.2016. Despite the fact that the matter was remanded back and the learned Commissioner was required to adjudicate the matter afresh, the learned Commissioner did not consider any of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
