9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T dated 20.06.2012. It is found that since the appellant did not facilitate the department in verifying the correctness of their averment till the order under challenge dated 31.03.2023 was passed, the appellant had failed to provide any fresh document with respect to the amount received for which the service tax liability has been confirmed. Pursuant to the directions of remand that bills, invoices and bilties raised by the appellant and recipient of service should have been received and fresh speaking order to be passed thereafter. There is no other document for the purpose. The fresh plea of seeking exemption of Mega Notification cannot be adjudicated in the absence of the requisite and sufficient documents. Accordingly, there are no inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious transporters during the impugned period and the said activity is covered under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Pursuant to those directions of remand that the original adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 37/2021-22 dated 31.12.2021 has held that the appellant had not provided the requisite documents. Hence, eligibility of the appellant under Notification No. 30/2012 cannot be ascertained. The order confirming service tax demand of Rs.2,10,508/- along with the interest was again being passed and penalties were imposed as mentioned in the said order. In an appeal against the said order the Order-in-Appeal No. 123/2023 dated 31.03.2023 has been passed rejecting the appeal and upholding the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as 2016 (45) STR 341 (Tri.-Mumbai), the order is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submissions. The findings in the orders under challenge are reiterated. It is mentioned that the appellant had not responded the show cause notice. The initial Order-in- Original was passed ex parte. Despite it was remanded by Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant had still failed to produce requisite documents as is apparent from Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2021. The amount for which the documents have been produced i.e. for a value of Rs.40,53,932/- the demand has already been dropped. It is only with respect to remaining amount of Rs.17,03,136/- that the demand for service tax of Rs.2,10,508/- has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id service provided by the appellant is covered under exemption vide Mega Exemption Notification No 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. 5.2 I find that since the appellant did not facilitate the department in verifying the correctness of their averment till the order under challenge dated 31.03.2023 was passed, the appellant had failed to provide any fresh document with respect to the amount received for which the service tax liability has been confirmed. Pursuant to the directions of remand that bills, invoices and bilties raised by the appellant and recipient of service should have been received and fresh speaking order to be passed thereafter. It is only six bilities that have been produced by the appellant. As pointed by learned Departmental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
