2014 (7) TMI 1137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nfirmed a Service Tax demand of Rs. 2,84,07,647/- against the appellant M/s. Skypack Service Specialties Ltd. along with interest thereon apart from imposing penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 3. The facts relevant to the case, briefly, are as follows : 3.1 The appellant-assessee is a provider of courier service which is a taxable service. The appellant did not discharge Service Tax liability from October 2003 onwards even though Service Tax was collected from the customers. They also failed to file ST-3 returns giving the details of the transactions undertaken by them. Therefore, an investigation was undertaken into the activities of the appellant b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payable. In order to verify this claim, the appellant-assessee was directed to produce documentary evidence vide letter dated 10-2-2011 followed by reminders dated 11-3-2011, 30-3-2011, 21-4-2011, 5-5-2011 and 27-5-2011. However, there was no response from the appellant-assessee. Therefore, the adjudicating authority proceeded to determine the Service Tax liability of the appellant based on the balance sheet/trial balance figures and the information given in the S.T.-3 returns filed. However, he granted them cum-tax benefit and determined the Service Tax liability at Rs. 2,84,07,647/-. The amount of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by the appellant during the investigation was appropriated towards Service Tax liability. He also confirmed interest on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sues involved. 3.4 The learned consultant who appeared on behalf of the appellant could not explain to us why these documents could not be produced before the adjudicating authority at the relevant time. From the impugned order, it is clear that in spite of several opportunities given, the appellant-assessee did not submit any of these documents. Secondly, the learned consultant is also unable to explain how these documents are relevant for the determination of tax liability and if so, to what extent. Inasmuch as these crucial conditions required for admission of additional evidence are not satisfied by the appellant-assessee, we reject the papers now filed by the appellant as inadmissible. 4. From the records it is seen tha....