9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction of commercial and industrial complex services". Intelligence gathered revealed that the appellant was not discharging the correct service tax liability and, therefore, the premises of the appellant were searched on 02.06.2017. The Tally data recovered from the premises of the appellant for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17 was compared with the returns filed by the appellant and it was noticed that the appellant had not included Rs. 25,59,80,238/- in the ST-3 returns. It was, therefore, believed that there was a short fall of Rs. 1,07,52,629/- in the service tax paid by the appellant. It was also noticed by the officers that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 15,89,475/-. 3. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as ordered by the adjudicating authority. 8. I have examined their submissions. The appellant have accepted the service tax liability. However, they have pleaded for reduction of penalty. The demand of service tax pertains to the period 2012-13 to 2016-17. As per Section 78 of the Act, penalty is imposable which is equal to the 100% of the amount of service tax evaded. However, in terms of the proviso, the penalty for the period 08.04.2011 to 14.05.2015 shall be 50% of the service tax determined if the details relating to such transactions are recorded in the specified records. The appellant have suppressed the value of taxable services in their ST-3 returns. During the search carried out by DGCEI, it was revealed that all the accounts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emphasis supplied) 6. Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. 7. On the 10.01.2025, the following order was passed by the Bench: "Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Though, on the last occasion it was made clear that the matter would be heard even if the appellant does not appear but learned authorised representative appearing for the department points out that the learned authorised representative who has to argue the matter has gone for training. List on March 17, 2025." 8. Despite the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant has not appeared. It is, therefore, considered appropriate to decide the appeal after hearing Shri Manoj Kumar, learned au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
