9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,37,33,773/- alongwith interest and equal penalty. 2. The issues involved herein is whether the appellant was required to pay Service Tax on the Advances/Mobilization amount received from their customer and also whether these amounts were advances or loan against Bank Guarantee from the clients as claimed by the appellant? 3. The appellants were providing taxable services viz. Construction of Complex Services, Commercial or Industrial Construction Services & Works Contract Services during the period in issue i.e. 2007-08 to 2011-12. While conducting the EA-2000 audit on the records of the appellant, it was found that the appellant had entered into contracts with various clients for construction works required to be undertaken and that f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has discharged service tax on the entire amount received for the work done in various projects during the relevant period. Learned counsel also raises an issue which goes to the root of the matter, that the impugned order has been passed on extraneous ground behind the back of the appellant and no opportunity of hearing was granted to them. According to learned counsel, the appellant did not attend the personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority due to serious illness of their Senior Taxation Manager who was bedridden at the relevant time, however all the documents were submitted before the Adjudicating Authority, but those were not gone into by the said Authority while passing the impugned order. Per contra learned Authorised Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f their case. But nothing has been done till date. The Show-Cause Notice is dated 01.10.2012 and more than three years and five months have lapsed so far. Neither any reply is filed nor any documents produced in support of their case. Since, the law does not provide for any further adjournment, I proceed to decide the case based on the record as well as, as per the Law." 6. After reading the aforesaid paragraph in the impugned order we are of the view that it is not fair on the part of the learned counsel to submit that the impugned order was passed behind their back or without giving opportunity of hearing to them. Sufficient opportunities were granted to the appellant and twice the Manager-Taxation of the appellant also appeared before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
