9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original No. HYD-EXCUS-004-COM-015-2022-23, dated 01.11.2022, passed by respondent No. 1. 3. Vide the said impugned order, respondent No. 1 has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,94,53,998/- against the petitioners in terms of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also confirmed the demand of Interest on the Service tax amounts payable, under Section 75 of the Act. In addition, a penalty of the same amount i.e., Rs. 3,94,53,998/- was imposed under Section 78 of the Act. However, the penalty would get reduced to 25% provided the service tax, interest and the reduced penalty amount to be paid within a period of thirty days from the receipt of that order. Furthermore, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree opportunities of personal hearing should have been given with sufficient interval of time to the notice before an order is passed. 6. On the previous date of hearing, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the Department to seek instructions as to provide the proof of service of notice of personal hearing being provided to the petitioner before the Order-in-Original dated 01.11.2022 was passed. 7. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the Department submits that there does not seem to be any documents to prove the notice of personal hearing being effectively served upon the petitioner. 8. In the teeth of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Department, what is apparently evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earance for personal hearing on the first occasion, he could be granted two more opportunities before his right for personal hearing is closed. These instructions, which have been laid down by the Department itself has not been followed in the first instance or atleast there is no record to substantiate this fact. 12. In the absence of any document to prove the service of notice on the petitioner, the Order-in-Original dated 01.11.2022, would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. 13. Since the writ petition is being allowed on technicalities of their being violative of the principles of natural justice, the matter stands remitted back to respondent No. 1 for proceeding further with the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
