9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext. P2, an order passed by the 1st respondent inter alia contending that it is issued in violation of principles of natural justice. In Ext. P2 order, it is clearly indicated that the assessee did not reply to the notice nor did he appear for personal hearing fixed on 18-3-2014, 19-3-2014, 21-3-2014 and 1-4-2014. Hence, a decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emit the admitted service tax for the period 2007 to 2010. Certain amounts had been remitted only on 20-8-2010. No interest or penalty for late payment had been deposited. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the following payments had been made. (1) Rs. 8,10,928/-, (2) Rs. 25,43,146/-, (3) Rs. 1,77,539/-, (4) Rs. 2,76,049/-, (5) Rs. 1,64,537/-. These amounts were paid before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the period for filing the appeal has already expired. That apart, the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice is belied on the basis of the documents now made available. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that payments made by the petitioner had not been adjusted towards the service tax payable. It is made clear that if any payment has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
