9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant submits that the Department has issued two show cause notices one on 30/04/2010 and the other on 15/04/2011 involving the same issue for the same period. He submits that in the first show cause notice, the demand of Rs.2.29 Crores was issued, whereas in the second show cause notice, the total demand for the same period has been Rs.12.56 Crores. He submits that even though the Department has referred to ST-3 Returns of third parties in the show cause notice dated 15/04/2011, the same were not supplied to them in spite of the request made on 14/11/2011. He submits that no time frame was set out to reply to the show cause notice dated 15/04/2011, however, he has fairly submitted that the applicant has neither responded/replied to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant data, the department issued the SCN on 15.04.2011 whereby, the correct service tax liability which ought to have been paid by the applicant, had been demanded. It is because of non-cooperative attitude of the applicant, two show cause notices were to be issued to the applicant. He submits that all the enclosures as mentioned in the SCN dated 15/04/2011 had been handed over to the appellant. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that through the letter dated 21/11/2011, the applicant had requested for supply of these documents, but it was after conclusion of the personal hearing on 31/10/2011. However, the Ld. A.R. has no objection for remanding the case for reconsideration of the issues afresh but he pleads that the applicant be put in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... around 19 bundles of documents comprising of contracts/invoices etc. running into around 2600 pages which they failed to produce before the adjudicating authority. Both sides at this stage, agree that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the evidences which were not earlier placed before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the case may be remitted to the adjudicating authority for deciding the issue afresh. We also agree with the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue that in remanding the case, the appellant be put into terms. Therefore, considering overall aspects of the case and the interest of Revenue, the offer made by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant seems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
