9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty, were initiated against the appellant, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Refinery Division), Haldia, having provided the taxable Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) defined in Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). Five show-cause notices dated 01.11.2004, 14.10.2005, 18.05.2006, 09.05.2007 & 05.10.2007, were issued covering the period January, 2004 to February, 2007 proposing levy of service tax Rs.4,98,55,370/- besides interest and penalties including penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 3. The show-cause notices alleged inter-alia, that the appellant had provided several services not only to M/s IOCL, Marketing Division, but to other corporate entities as well. In this connection, the name of only one other corporate en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee to an adjudicating authority. We deprecate such irresponsible conduct by a Public Sector Undertaking. 4. Eventually, the impugned adjudicating authority was passed dealing with all five show-cause notices. In the statement of the brief facts in the order, it is merely stated that the appellant is a manufacturer and producer of different petroleum products ; dealing with its own marketing division and with other corporate entities, like, BPCL and had provided services to such other entities as well ; that the appellant's Marketing division, Haldia, had marketed their own product and availed different facilities and services from the Refinery Division of the appellant by way of 'Terminaling Facilities' and paid terminal charges for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice that the appellant was providing services to BPCL, Haldia, another Company ; that allegation was not responded to by the appellant. 7. The appellant is seen to have been wholly uncooperative and has exhibited a negative attitude in responding to the exercise of lawful authority, in the matter of assessment. It is axiomatic that the appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking, ought to exhibit a sense of responsibility in responding to notices or summons issued by the Assessing Authority ; by furnishing all the relevant information necessary to enable a just and fair assessment of the appellants liability, if any. As a Public Sector Undertaking, the assessee ought to have been a role model to other assesses, in the matter of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority was un-duly deferential to the appellant, which is just another assessee. 9. Since, we are remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority, substantially on account of the non-cooperative attitude of the appellant during the adjudication process, a conduct which had led to an incoherent adjudication order, we consider it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the appellant to the credit of Revenue (the adjudicating authority) within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Appellant is at liberty to initiate appropriate steps against its officers, who had failed to adequately respond or to furnish the requisite information to the adjudicating authority. 11. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
