9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of immovable service as a provider of services and goods transport agencies service as receiver of service. During the course of audit for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11, it was found that the Appellant had availed Cenvat credit in respect of service tax attributed to services such as Works Contract Service, Membership of Clubs, Event Management, Construction of Residential Complex Service and Commercial Construction Service, Credit Card Services, International Air Travel Agent & Event Management Services which are not eligible as input services in terms of Rule 2(l) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore a show cause notice dated 19/04/2012 was issued to the Appellant demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 12,92,874/- for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is settled legal position that orders issued after such a long delay are not legally sustainable. He further submitted that due to this inordinate delay between hearing and passing of the order, the Commissioner got confused about the facts and legal points, and that he mixed up the submissions and quoted decision which were not at all relied upon by the Appellant. He further submitted that the Appellant had filed letter alongwith Additional written submissions before the Learned Commissioner vide letter dated 29/09/2017 and only the letter was acknowledged by the Commissioner in paragraph no. 10 of the impugned order without touching the written submissions. In this said written submissions, the Appellant have specifically mentioned that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing. By virtue of the letter dated 29.09.2017, the Appellant placed additional written submissions dated 29.09.2017before the learned Commissioner with a request to grant some more time to submit additional detail. A perusal of the said Additional written submissions prima facie show that the total amount of the impugned services comes only to Rs. 4,06,201/- but still the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 9,69,657/- without rejecting or discussing the aforesaid submissions filed by the Appellant. Although, the hearing was concluded on 13/09/2017 but the order was delivered in the month of April, 2018 therefore, in between the learned Commissioner could have given some more time to the Appellant to submit additional details as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
