TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to challenge an order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax Division. Operative portion of this order reads as under:- "I hereby sanction refund amounting to Rs. 11,49,852/- (Rupees eleven lakhs fourty nine thousand eight hundred and fifty two only) (Rs. 9,12,066/- against the Pre-deposit amount and Rs. 2,37,786/- against the interest of pre-deposit) to M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Opp. GPO, MI Road Jaipur-302001 under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. I also order to adjust the above said refund claim of Rs. 11,49,852/- against Government dues pending for recovery which was confirmed vide OIO No. JAI-EXCUS-000-COM-30-15-16 dated 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 38,57,094/- (Rs. Thirty Eight Lacs Fifty Seven Thousands and Ninety Four only) + Rs. 3,96,954/- (Rs. Three Lacs Ninety Six Thousands Nine Hundred Fifty Four Only) including Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess and order it to be recovered from M/s Executive Engineer (E), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 1st Floor, new Admn, Building, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur (Raj.) alongwith interest in terms of section 75 of the said Act. (ii) I confirm the demand of interest of Rs. 1,79,568/- (Rs. One Lacs Seventy Nine Thousands Five Hundred and Sixty Eight only) under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of service tax late paid by M/s Executive Engineer (E), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 1st Floor, New Admn, Building, Jh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner preferred appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. This appeal was disposed by an order dated 11.09.2018. Relevant portion of this order reads as under:- "10. Once no taxability is involved question of evasion of tax does not arise. The question for assessee to suppress or mis-represent the fact with the intent to evade tax also retains no relevant. Resultantly the department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. Show cause notice is thereof held to be time barred. Resultantly, we opine, that commissioner has wrongly imposed the penalty, while adjudicating a time barred show cause notice. 11. We accordingly set aside the order under challenge and allow the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Government dues pending for recovery which was confirmed vide OIO No.JAI-EXCUS- 000-COM-30-15-16 dated 06.08.2015 amounting to Rs. 1,20,87,217/-." Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the CESTAT has set aside the entire order in original. Thereafter there was no scope for the adjudicating authority to withhold any part of pre-deposit amount. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Siddharth Ranka appearing for the department submitted that the petitioner had not challenged before the CESTAT two parts of demand of Rs. 38,57,094/- and Rs.38,69,054/- in the appeal that was filed before the Tribunal. Such order of the adjudicating authority qua these amounts therefore became final. The pre-deposit made by the petitioner had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no ground to oppose such demands. This reply to the show-cause notice is quite elaborate which we have perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and thereby come to this conclusion. In the appeal memo against the order of adjudication, averments have been made opposing both these recoveries in specific terms. However in the grounds in such appeal memo no specific grounds are included. All grounds only concern the opposition to the confirmation of demand of Rs. 12,62,95,889/- The prayer clause in the appeal memo is also specific and reads as under:- "set aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner wrongly ordering for recovery Service Tax demand of Rs. 126295889/- along with intere....