2012 (10) TMI 261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the original authority confirmed demand of Rs. 18,20,329/- towards service tax and education cess against the assessee for the period from April 2006 to March 2007 by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994. It also disallowed CENVAT credit of Rs. 92,210/- which was found to have been wrongly availed by the assessee. It also imposed penalty of Rs. 36 lakhs under Section 78 of the Act with the rider that, if the service tax with interest was paid within one month and the CENVAT credit in question was reversed within the same period, the quantum of penalty would stand reduced to Rs. 4,55,082/-. Aggrieved by the order-in-original, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ultant for the assessee that the expenses in question were reimbursed by their clients on actual basis and that documentary evidence of the same was produced before the original authority. In this connection, our attention is taken to paper book volume II which is a voluminous compilation of documents with a covering letter dated 26.02.2009 addressed to the original authority. It is submitted that these documents were not considered by that authority. It is submitted that, after the filing of the above documents, a new officer took charge as the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax (adjudicating authority) but, by oversight or otherwise, did not consider the above documents. It is further pointed out that the adjudicating authority wrongly no....