TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Central Excise Act, 1944, for short (the Act) was not made by the petitioner. 2. Brief facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of providing travel services including cab rentals etc. It is claimed that Order-in-Original dated 13.09.2022 was illegally and incorrectly passed ex-parte by Astt. Comm. CGST, raising demand of service tax of Rs. 12,62,053/- with penalty. It is incorrectly recorded therein that noticee failed to respond to any of the communications show cause notice etc. for the reason that notices, if any, were served upon an outgoing partner who had failed to communicate said notices to the firm. Thus, managing partners were unaware of the notice(s) in question. Moreover, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the amount and matter should have been heard on merits. It is, thus prayed that impugned order dated 22.12.2023 may be set aside and writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 5. Learned counsel for respondent (on advance notice) has opposed the writ petition, dismissal thereof is sought. 6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file carefully with their able assistance. 7. Perusal of Order-in-Original dated 13.09.2022 reveals that show cause notice dated 29.12.2020 was duly issued to the petitioner demanding an amount of Rs. 12,62,053/- in terms of Section 73 of the Act. No reply was admittedly filed by the petitioner. It is further recorded in order dated 13.09.2022 that the matter was listed for personal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were served upon the outgoing partner who did not inform the petitioner about the same. However, we take note of the fact that there is no detail of such outgoing partner mentioned either in the grounds of appeal or even in the writ petition before us. 9. Even during the course of arguments learned counsel for petitioner was unable to give us the details of this outgoing partner; the date on which he exited the firm etc. It is further to be noted that upon filing of this appeal, intimation dated 14.06.2023, was duly sent to the petitioner noting the following discrepancies : "1. No proof of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 which made applicable in service tax matters vide Section 83 of Finance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of pre deposit and it is only on such intimation that petitioner was enjoined upon to deposit the said amount. In our considered opinion this argument is devoid of any merit, hence rejected. It is duly noted by the First Appellate Authority in impugned order dated 22.12.2023 that personal hearing was afforded at that stage as well. Learned counsel was also called upon to ensure that pre-deposit be made on or before 20.12.2023 but needful was not done. Department has afforded number of opportunities to petitioner to do the needful but apparently no amount of pre-deposit, even as per its own calculation was ever made by the petitioner. This clearly reflects adversely on the conduct of petitioner. Another aspect to be noted is that this w....