TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1061
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lling statements of appellant from April, 2000 to March, 2004. It is also not in dispute that only on 11-6-2004, the company remitted an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs towards part payment of Service Tax due from them. As a matter of fact, notice was sent to the Manager of the company directing him to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Regional Unit, Kochi, which had information and material for opining that appellant/assessee was evading Service Tax at a large scale. 3. After giving opportunity to explain and also taking into account the entire material produced, the first appellate authority opined that correct Service Tax for the taxable service was not paid during April, 2000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I observe that the above fact was not brought to the notice of the investigating officers. In the reply dated 4-5-2005, they had stated that the copies of credit notes were available with them for producing before the adjudicating authority. In their letters dated 6-6-2005 and 20-6-2005 they requested for more time to produce the credit notes as the same were not received from the Airlines. However, in the reply statement dated 23-11-2005 they produced copies of the ST3 returns for the period 4/2000 to 3/2004 (8 nos.) only stated to have been prepared on the basis of actual receipt. They have not produced copies of the credit notes or any other evidence for the refund or for the actual receipt claimed by them. In the absence of any convinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....came to be challenged before the first appellate authority and first appellate authority, as per Annexure A3 order, dated 22-10-2007, proceeded to opine that the Financiers v. C.C.E., Jaipur - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 7 (Tribunal of Delhi) deserves to be applied, hence proceeded to modify the order-in-original and the appeal was disposed of. Again this came to be challenged by the Department before the Appellate Tribunal. Appellate Tribunal by referring to the judgment of Assistant Commissioner v. Krishna Poduval - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.) opined that in the light of jurisdictional High Court judgment, there was no justification for the first appellate authority to set aside the orders of the assessing authority and accordingly the appeal filed by....