TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the services provided to the Government Authority. (B) That the Hon'ble Court may set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise of OIO No. 97/ST/TPI/ADC/2023-24 dtd.28.08.2023 and remand the matter back to the Additional Commissioner to decide the issue afresh by according an opportunity of personal hearing. (C) That the Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent No. 3 to decide the application seeking rectification of mistake by considering the submissions along with the annexure afresh. 2. We have extensively heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. 3. The Petitioner widow, sole proprietary firm claims exemption on the basis of Service Tax Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012, dated 20th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The issue before me to decide is whether the services provided by the noticee were exempted from Service Tax or to demand Service Tax of Rs. 86,38,193/- (Including Education Cess, Secondary & Higher Education Cess, Krishi Kalyan Cess and Swatch Bharat Cess) for the FY 2015-16 & 2016-17 along with penalty under Section 70, Section 77, Section 78 and Interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 22. Ongoing through the reply to SCN dated 17.03.2023, I find that the noticee submitted that their total turnover is to the Government of Maharashtra which is Exempted as per Notification 25/2012 dt. 20.06.2012 vide Sr No. 12 A. and further they requested to drop the impugned SCN. However, I find that the noticee falled to submit any docu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight Thousand One Hundred Ninety Three only) (Including Cess) under erstwhile Section 73 (1) of Finance Act 1994 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rule 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, for non-payment of Service Tax on taxable Service provided / received for the period 2015-16 & 2016-17. ii. I order recovery of Interest on the Service Tax amount of Rs. 86,38,193/- at appropriate rate under erstwhile Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. iii. I impose Penalty of Rs. 86,38,193/- up on the noticee under Sections 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, benefit of reduced penalty @25% of the service tax is available with noticee if service tax, interest an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartments/State instrumentality. Hence, an exemption was sought under Clause 12 of the above referred notification, dated 20th June, 2012. 6. This contention was met with an order under Paragraph Nos. 21, 22 and 23 reproduced above. The authority has recorded in paragraph 20 that except the copy of the show cause notice and the reply dated 27.03.2023, no other record or documents have been placed on record. It is in this circumstance that the concerned authority concluded that it is the noticee who has to prove exemption and unless such exemption is proved, there can be no exemption in favour of the noticee. Based on such a conclusion, the operative order was passed below Paragraph No. 34, which is reproduced above. 7. The appeal is pref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Appeal is disposed off and the challenge to the first order passed by Respondent No. 3, may be entertained. 11. In Sanjeev Desai (supra), this Court has recorded in paragraph No. 11 that the concerned Appellate Authority cannot be blamed since it did not have the power to condone the delay. It was also recorded in paragraph No.5, that the Court was inclined to exercise it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly in view of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. We deem it appropriate to adopt the same course. 12. We record the statement of the Petitioner that the pending appeal be declared as disposed off as the delay cannot be condoned. The Appellate Authority shall, therefore, dispose off t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... finally recorded that as the relevant documents were not before the said Authority, the claim was rejected. 15. The learned Advocate for the Department submits on the basis of the documents placed before the Court and in the light of Clause 12 of the Notification dated 20.06.2012, that it would be the noticee who will have to canvass these points before Respondent No. 3 to convince the Authority that the Petitioner has an arguable case. This is a matter, which can be looked into by the concerned Authority. He submits that this court may not exercise jurisdiction for deciding the said issue since the concerned Authority has rejected the claim of the Petitioner only on the ground that the documents were not placed before the concerned Autho....