TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Principal Commissioner, but he had been transferred prior to the date of the filing of the application. 3. It transpires from the records that the order dated 11.08.2015 adjudicates the show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 that was issued for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13. An investigation had been initiated against the appellant in respect of short payment of service tax under the categories of " transport of goods by road service [GTA]", " transport of goods by air service" and "storage & warehousing service" and wrong availment of CENVAT credit. This resulted in issuance of show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 to which the appellant filed replies dated 29.04.2014 and 27.12.2014 submitting that the demand was not sustainable since the appellant was primarily engaged in rendering GTA services in respect of which service tax was payable by the service recipient. The appellant also contended that it had correctly paid service tax in respect of "warehousing service" and "transport of goods by air service" and had also correctly availed CENVAT credit. 4. A notice was sent to the appellant fixing 06.07.2015 as a date for hearing. According to the appellant a communication dated 06.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should not be read in such a manner so as to divest the subsequent officer from passing an appropriate order on the application filed for rectification of mistake. 9. Shri Rajeev Kapoor, learned authorized representative appearing for the department has, however, supported the impugned order and has submitted that when the appellant did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing granted to the appellant on 06.07.2015, the Principal Commissioner was justified in passing the order on 11.08.2015. Learned authorized representative also submitted that the Commissioner committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for rectification of the mistake as the Officer who had passed the order had in the meantime been transferred. 10. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 11. The issue that needs to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in passing the ex-parte order on 11.08.2015. 12. According to the appellant, the applicant had submitted an application on 06.07.2015, which was the da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g documents were submitted by the Assessee to the commissionerate : i. Certificate issued by Statutory Auditors as 'Annexure A'. ii. Bifurcation of total services as per department's format as 'Annexure B'. iii. Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012 as 'Annexure C'. iv. Balance sheet FY 2012-13. v. Service tax return FY 2012-13. vi. Balance sheet FY 2011-12. vii. Service tax return 2011-12. viii. Balance sheet FY 2010-11. ix. Service tax return FY 2010-11. x. Balance sheet FY 2009-10. xi. Service tax return FY 2009-10. xii. Balance sheet FY 2008-09. xiii. Service tax return FY 2008-09. 11. On 10.08.2015 when the case was fixed before the Commissioner for hearing the authorized representative of the Assessee Company submitted the above said documents and also intended to make the oral submission before the Commissioner to explain its case. However, the authorized representative of the Assessee Company were surprised to peruse the cause list of the Commissioner as the case of the Assessee Company was not mentioned in the roster of the hearing of the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssionerate on 21.08.2015 under the cover of its letter dated 21.08.2015. The documents submitted in the commissionerate on 21.08.2015 were: i. Year wise list of its clients (to whom the company provided the GTA Services). ii. Sample copies of consignment notes issued to the clients. In the letter dated 21.08.2015 the Assessee company further requested the commissionerate, on the basis of position of law and the facts pertaining to the case, to drop the present adjudication proceedings as there was no service tax dues from the Assessee company. 14. On 21.08.2015 itself the authorized representatives of the Assessee company went to meet the learned Commissioner of service tax to make oral submissions in support of their defence as they could not be afforded such opportunity even on the last date of hearing i.e. 10.08.2015. It was quite essential for the Assessee company to make oral submissions in support of its defence in order to explain the documents submitted and to show how the queries raised in SCN dated 24.04.2014 were fully reconciled and satisfied. It would not be an exaggeration to state that oral submissions were necessary to put life an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeared for hearing rather a letter dated 29 December 2014 was filed. By this letter the party explained that insofar as liability of payment of service tax on goods transport agency is concerned they were entitled to the benefit of notification number 30/2012 and 43/97. In respect of the CENVAT credit on the inputs they submitted that they have never taken any CENVAT Credit in respect of payment of services towards goods transport agency services. In respect of service tax liability on goods transport by rail/air and warehousing they submitted that they were paying service tax regularly and have also availed the benefit of CENVAT credit, however they have not submitted any document to substantiate their claim of benefit of notification number 30/2012 or 43/97. Further no reconciliation what so ever with respect to proper payment of service tax was filed as promised. Another opportunity of personal hearing was offered to the party on 24 April 2015 followed by 11 Feb 2015 and the last opportunity on 15.06.2015, but none appeared. Above chronology will go to prove that the party is avoiding proper reply to the Show Cause Notice there by creating further impression in the m....