2019 (9) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dustrial Construction Service and Transportation Service. Appellant received a show-cause cum demand notice dated 19.04.2010 to demand and recover the service tax of Rs. 7,06,618/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Six Thousand Six Hundred and Eighteen only) along with interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Additional Commissioner after following the due process vide Order-in-Original dated 29.11.2010 reduced the demand to Rs. 6,78,657/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Seven only) along with equal penalty. After the receipt of the said order, appellant deposited the service tax of Rs. 5,69,517/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen only) along with interest of Rs. 1,30,922/- (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t documents. However the Additional Commissioner directed the appellant to appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum. Again on 17.12.2014, appellant visited the office of the Superintendent and submitted all the documents again and in spite of this, no communication was received for the hearing. Then ultimately, the appellant vide letter dated 28.02.2018 claimed the refund of service tax of Rs. 2,20,513/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Thirteen only) paid by him in excess in the transaction. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 07.03.2018 rejected the said refund application as time-barred. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner (Appeals) but the same was not done in this case in spite of so many reminders to the Departmental Officers. The details of which has been placed on record. He also relied upon the Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX dated 08.12.2004 and also relied upon the following decisions: a. Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2017 (6) GSTL-308 b. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2014 (311) E.L.T. 816 5. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 03.08.2012 has given cum-tax benefit to the appellant and the said benefit was to be determined after proper verification by the jurisdi....