CGST, C.E. & C.C., Bhopal Versus Akansha Sales Promoters I Pvt Ltd
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 974 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 20-12-2018
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/60538/2013 [DB] – IO/ST/101/2018-CU[DB]
Service Tax
MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Mr. G.R. Singh, DR
Present for the Respondent: Mr. JM Sharma, Consultant & Ms. Pooja Agarwal, CA
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
This matter has been taken up in furtherance of the Order of Hon'ble High Court Madhya Pradesh dated 29.10.2018. The adjudication in this case began with a SCN of 20.04.2010. The proposed demand therein was confirmed however the penalty proposed therein wa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to the absence of the respondent-assessee and the circumstances as detailed and the order dated 12.12.2017 that the Miscellaneous Application of the respondent assessee was dismissed and the Appeal of Revenue was listed for final hearing on 12.01.2018.
3. This Tribunal vide the Order dated 02.07.2018 has allowed the impugned Appeal of the Revenue vide the Final Order No. 52378/2018 dated 02.07.2018 holding :
“6. From the record of the case, we find that the demand stands raised for the period 01.10.2004 to 31.03.2010. The amendment in Section 78 was carried out w.e.f. 10.05.2008. hence, in the light of the Tribunal decision above, penalty under Section 76 is imposable for the period 01.10.2004 to 09.05.2008. The lower authority is directe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ledge of the disposal of the main Appeal vide Order dated 02.07.2018 as such:
“After going through the order sheet and the proceedings recorded by the Tribunal on 22.11.2017, we are satisfied that the order passed by the Tribunal on 12.12.2017 is contrary to the facts available on record. The Tribunal failed to see that the appellant was directed to furnish the details or the chronological events on 22.11.2017 and the case was posted on 12.12.2017. On the said date request was made for an adjournment on the ground of illness of the counsel of the appellant. Heavens would not have fallen if the case was adjourned for a week or so to enable the appellant to put forth his case before the Tribunal.
In view of the foregoing we cannot sustain
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =