2018 (7) TMI 918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h, D.R. for the respondent. ORDER Per Rachna Gupta: The Appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 18.12.2014, where the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,64,44,454/- has been confirmed, in addition to the penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. The relevant facts for the purpose is that the Appellant are the holder of Service Tax Registration being engaged in providing the service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under challenge, the opportunity to the Appellant being heard was not afforded. Finally, it is impressed upon that the appellant, during the impugned period, was constructing several Universities, which are neither covered under commercial, nor under the industrial works. The order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Jyoti Sarup Mittal vs. CCE, Delhi - I in Appeal No. ST/55892 & 56509/2013 [Final .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pugned demand, it is still their responsibility to furnish the proper and complete documents to the Department. 5. In view of these submissions, we are of the considered view that while passing the order under challenge, the Appellant has not been heard. This amounts to the violation of the basic principle of natural justice, "audi alteram partem". For this reason itself, the remand of the matter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X