TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation as well as on merits and Order-in-Original No.41/AC/D-BSR/GBN/2022-23 dated 09.12.2022 has been affirmed. By the said Order-in-Original dated 09.12.2022, demand of service tax of Rs.4,51,861/- along with interest and penalty of Rs.4,51,861/- was confirmed against the Appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the period 2016-17, the Appellant, a partnership firm, was registered under the Finance Act, 1994 [Act]. It is the case of the Appellant that pursuant to some work contract awarded to M/s EMC Limited by Railways, M/s EMC Limited sub-contracted some part of work by awarding work order to the Appellant with the condition that since Service Tax is exempted on services provided to Railways, hence no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two days in filing appeal. During the pendency of appeal, personal hearing was granted by the Commissioner (Appeals), during which the counsel for the Appellant appeared and sought 15 days' time to furnish documents required by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. However, since the required documents were not filed by the Appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded ex-parte against the Appellant and passed the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 rejecting the appeal both on limitation as well as on merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appeal has been filed with a delay of two days and since the Appellant has not filed any delay condonation application and has also not assigned any reason for delay of two days, hence the appeal is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Departmental Authorized Representative for the revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and supported the same. 9. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 10. I find that the first issue to be decided in the present case is to whether the Appellant filed any delay condonation application before the Commissioner (Appeals). On attention being invited to page 23 of the appeal paper book, I find that the same is a delay condonation application bearing stamp dated 03.03.2023, which is identical to the stamp affixed on the appeal memo in Form ST-4 filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the application appearing at page 23 of the appeal paper book is an application seeking condonation of delay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....more so when the burden to prove taxable event i.e. provision of taxable services is on the revenue and the Appellant is duly registered under the Act. However, I find from the adjudication and the impugned order that there is neither any evidence nor any material on record to suggest that the amount disclosed in income tax return represents consideration against taxable services. In the adjudication order as well as the impugned order, the burden of proving taxable event has been reversed on the Appellant and the revenue has proceeded on an assumption that the Appellant has provided taxable services against consideration and has failed to substantiate the claim of exemption. This approach is clearly contrary to the settled law laid down by....