Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Src Waterways & Land Devp. Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Commr. Of Service Tax-Kolkata on 8 October, 2015

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
      
                                S.P.  No : ST/SP/70323/2013
			   AND
                         Service Tax Appeal No. : ST/70370/2013	


  (Arising out of the Order-in-Original  No.47/Commr./ST/Kol/2012-13 dated-07/01/2013  passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Kolkata)

For approval and signature of:
DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see             :  
    the Order  for publication as per Rule 27 of the
    CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
    
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the        :  
      CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication 
    in any authoritative report or not ?
    						                             
     3.   Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy            :  
    of the Order?   
     4.    Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental    :   
            Authorities ?


SRC Waterways & Land Devp. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 
      APPELLANT(S)  
 VERSUS
Commr. of  Service Tax-Kolkata
     RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE

Sri  N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate  
      FOR APPELLANT(S)
Sri S. Sharma, Commr. (A.R.)
    FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 08/10/2015   

 
ORDER  NO : FO/A/75597/2015
Per  DR. D.M. MISRA 
	Heard both sides.

2. The present application is filed seeking waiver of Service Tax of Rs.3.37 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate Shri N.K. Chowdhury for the applicant fairly submits that the applicant had neither filed reply to the show cause nor appeared in the personal hearing during the course of adjudication proceeding. He submits that they have a strong case on merit and in the event they are given an opportunity to defend their case before the Ld. Commissioner , they would establish that no service tax is required to be paid. He submits that the company has been closed and no service has been rendered since 2012. The net worth of the company is in negative and hence they are entitled for full waiver in view of the judgment of Honble High Court at Calcutta in the case of M/s. Nicco Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CCE (Writ petition No. 14673/2014).

4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue fairly submits that the applicant had not participated in the adjudication proceeding and he has no objection in remanding the case.

5.` After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Nicco Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CCE (Writ petition No. 14673/2014), the pre-deposit of dues adjudged is waived and the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.

6. We find that the appellant had not participated in the adjudication proceeding by either filing reply to the show cause notice or attending the hearing before the adjudicating authority. The claim of the appellant now is that they have a strong case on merit. In our opinion, an opportunity be allowed to the appellant to present their case before the adjudicating authority rebutting various charges labelled in the show cause-cum-demand notice. The Ld. Advocate undertakes to file their reply to the show cause notice; accordingly, the appellant is directed to file reply to the show cause notice within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Thereafter, the Ld. Commissioner would proceed with adjudication afresh after taking into consideration all the evidences on record and the evidences that would be filed by the appellant. All issues are kept open. Needless to mention that adequate opportunity of hearing be given to the appellant. Appeal is allowed by way of Remand. S.P. disposed off.

      (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)	
      Sd/- 26/10/15						Sd/- 26/10/15
 (H.K. THAKUR)							   (D.M. MISRA)
Technical Member					         Judicial Member


k.b/-







   		Service Tax Appeal No. : ST/70370/2013	

4