9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice the Manager-Taxation of the appellant also appeared before the said authority and took time for filing reply and necessary documents in support of their claim but nothing was filed. Six times adjournment was granted by the said authority including twice on the request of their Manager Taxation. Although the illness of their Manager-Taxation was genuine ground but in his absence someone ought to have appeared before the adjudicating authority on behalf of appellant. There are no fault on the part of the adjudicating authority for adjudicating the issue ex-parte. Learned counsel also submits that all the documentary evidences have been filed by them in support of their claim. Conclusion - In the present case no personal hearing was sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that for the period from 2007-08 and 2008-09 they have received advance payments to the tune of Rs. 15,66,37,853/- and Rs. 48,63,42,784/- respectively but have not discharged service tax. The advances received during the aforesaid years were adjusted against the subsequent bills raised on provision of services. It was also observed that even the service tax was not paid on such adjustment against the advances on running account bills issued by them. The submissions/explanations offered by the appellants in response to the letters issued by Revenue were not found to be satisfactory and therefore, a show cause notice dated 1.10.2012, after invoking extended period of limitation, came to be issued to the appellant for recovering Rs.6,37,33,773 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative appearing for revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned Order and prayed for dismissal of the Appeal. He submits that no evidence was produced before the Adjudicating Authority to show that the amounts received were not advances/mobilization advance but were received as loan against Bank Guarantee from the clients as claimed by the appellant nor the appellant appeared before the adjudicating authority despite various opportunity given by the said authority before passing the impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative on behalf of Revenue and perused the case records including the written submissions/synopsis and case laws placed on record. The subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said authority and took time for filing reply and necessary documents in support of their claim but nothing was filed. Six times adjournment was granted by the said authority including twice on the request of their Manager Taxation. Although the illness of their Manager-Taxation was genuine ground but in his absence someone ought to have appeared before the adjudicating authority on behalf of appellant. Therefore we do not find any fault on the part of the adjudicating authority for adjudicating the issue ex-parte. Learned counsel also submits that all the documentary evidences have been filed by them before us in support of their claim. In our view we being the appellate authority cannot go for verifications of these documents and adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
