9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment and set aside the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a partnership firm and is providing medical services to patients and also to the visa aspirants for the embassies of countries i.e. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdon. Dr. Ashwani Kansal & Dr. Shobha Kansal are partners and are authorized medical Practitioners. The officers of Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence Chandigarh gathered intelligence that the appellant are approved by various embassies/consulates for conducting medical examinations for processing of their applications for permanent Residence/Immigration/Visa. 3. It was further found that the appellant has been conducting various tests for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 174(2) of CGST Act; * penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2) of the CGST Act for deliberately suppressing the facts and contravening the relevant provisions of laws with the intent to evade payment of service tax. 4. The appellant filed reply to the show cause notice. After following the due process, adjudicating authority vide its Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2020 dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellant vide show cause notice dated 10.10.2019, on various grounds as stated in the Order-in-original. Aggrieved by the said order, the department preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order has set aside the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the appellant further submits that since the appeal was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) ex-parte without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant clearly violating the principles of natural justice and the matter needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 9. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submits that in fact hearing notices were sent to the appellant but in spite of that they did not appear. Ld AR produced on record the copy of the hearing notice allegedly sent to the appellant through mail. 10. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
