2014 (8) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 45,55,995/- towards service tax and education cess from the appellant for the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2008. It had also imposed equal amount of penalty on the assessee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). Separate penalties were also imposed on them under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter passed Order-in-Appeal No. 15/2010 dated 2-8-2010 giving partial relief to the appellant. Accordingly, the demand of service tax was reduced to Rs. 23,04,024/- (education cess included) and the quantum of penalty under Section 78 of the Act was also reduced likewise. The penalty under Section 76 of the Act was dropped. St....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst them on the ground of lack of evidence. When the assessee's appeal came up before the Commissioner (Appeals), they were permitted to produce the remaining work orders as additional evidence and it was on the basis of this additional evidence that the appellate authority granted partial relief to the assessee. The main challenge in the present appeal of the Revenue is directed against this action of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is submitted that the additional evidence was allowed to be adduced at the appellate stage without sufficient reasons. It is submitted that the assessee could have adduced such evidence before the original authority which had given sufficient opportunity to them. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner ....