2014 (4) TMI 1165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, the Applicant preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, and the Hon'ble High Court by an Order (WP. No. 50 of 2014), dated 24-1-2014 remanded the case to this Tribunal with a direction to consider the said Application, afresh. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing, today. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that inadvertently, the counsel who appeared earlier before this Tribunal, had advanced some wrong submission, and accordingly, vide the Stay Order dated 20-11-2013, the Tribunal had passed the Order directing the Applicant to make the pre-deposit of 50% of the Service Tax. He, however, submits that even though they were in possession of necessary documents to show that the receipts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eposit of the amount directed by this Tribunal on 20-11-2013, would cause undue hardship to the Applicant. However, under instruction from his client, he makes an offer to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50.00 lakh and prays that the matter be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority by giving them liberty to place the evidences before the ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication. 3. Per contra. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that all these evidences placed now before this Tribunal for the first time, should be considered as additional evidences. Therefore, those evidences should not be allowed to be admitted at this stage, as the ld. Commissioner did not have an opportunity to examine the correctness and genuineness of the said evidences. H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....therefore, the ld. Commissioner had no occasion in examining these evidences, now produced. We find that undisputedly, the Appellant now claimed to have in possession of the evidences by which they could establish before the ld. Commissioner that the total taxable value for the relevant period, considered for assessment of duty, comprised both receipts from taxable as well as non-taxable services and also other miscellaneous receipts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Appellant should be given a fair opportunity to place all the evidences before the adjudicating authority. We also agree with the ld. AR that in remanding the case, the Appellant should be put into terms, so that there would not be any recurrence of non-cooperative ap....