TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned order in original No.STC/6/2014-ADC (LTU) passed by the 1st respondent herein vide C.No.IV/09/440/2011-STC/ADJ, dated 25.02.2014. 2. According to the petitioner concern, it is registered with the Service Tax Department with Registration No.AOOPM6824ST001 to provide Erection, commissioning and installation service as defined in Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the tax amount demanded i.e. Rs. 19,92,075/-. 3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal on 01.02.2016 to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said order-in-original, dated 25.02.2014 to avoid initiation of recovery proceedings against it. The said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred, vide order dated 02.09.2016. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could not be established as to whether the service tax in respect of the service rendered by the assessee to the above mentioned Contractors have been included in the demand made by them or not. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, contended that no document has been produced by the petitioner except a mere application and the petitioner did not chose to pref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice tax in respect of the service rendered by the assessee to the above mentioned Contractors have been included in the payment made by them. 8. Since there are communications by two Companies mentioned supra, which have been produced by the petitioner in the additional typed set of papers and as the petitioner has undertaken to produce all the work orders and TIN Reference Number before the aut....