TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings. If production of new documents is permitted at this stage it would be contrary to settled procedure and authority of the appellate remedies. If those documents were not in existence at the time of initiation of proceedings the same should not be allowed to be produced at the second stage of appeal. 2.2 In case of K. R. Mohan Reddy Vs. Net Work Inc. [(2007) 14 SCC 257] Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to earlier decisions in State of Gujarat Vs. Mahendra Kumar Parshottambhai Desai (dead) by L.Rs. [AIR 2006 SC 1864] & Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lal Pancham and others [AIR 1965 SC 1008], observed as follows: "15. The High Court, unfortunately did not enter into the said questions at all. As indicated hereinbefore, the High Court proceeded on the basis as if Clause(b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC was applicable. 16. It is now a trite law that the conditions precedent for application of Clause (aa) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order XLI is different from that of Clause (b). In the event the former is to be applied, it would be for the applicant to show that the ingredients or conditions precedent mentioned therein are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gain observed as follows: "4. However, we do not feel impressed with this argument and deem it fit to reject it in view of Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) which clearly states as follows: "27. (1)(a)*** (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) ***" On perusal of this provision, it is unambiguously clear that the party can seek liberty to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, but the same can be permitted only if the evidence sought to be produced could not be produced at the stage of trial in spite of exercise of due diligence and that the evidence could not be produced as it was not within his knowledge and hence was fit to be produced by the appellant before the appellate forum. 5. It is thus clear that there are conditions precedent before allowing a party to adduce additional evidence at the stage of appeal, which specifically incorporates conditions to the effect that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the plaintiff with due diligence could not have moved such an application to get proved the documents relied upon by him. Now it is to be seen whether the third condition i.e. one contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 is fulfilled or not. 13. In K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc. [K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc., (2007) 14 SCC 257] this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 261, para 19) "19. The appellate court should not pass an order so as to patch up the weakness of the evidence of the unsuccessful party before the trial court, but it will be different if the court itself requires the evidence to do justice between the parties. The ability to pronounce judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce judgment satisfactorily to the mind of the court. But mere difficulty is not sufficient to issue such direction." 14. In North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan Das [North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan Das, (2008) 8 SCC 511] this Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 515-16, para 13) "13. Though the general rule is that ordinarily the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and additional evidence, wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Line Guj 3987 2.6 In the present case I find counsel for appellant at second stage of appeal is seeking adjournment on the ground for discovering and producing certain documents which were not even produced at the earlier stages of adjudication and appeal. They were not available even at the time of filing this appeal. I do not find any merits in such a request more specifically when the amount of tax effect involved in this appeal is as low as Rs 20,000/-. The adjournment request is not entertained and dismissed. 3.0 I have heard Shri Santosh Kumar learned Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal. 4.2 Impugned order records as follows:- "5.2 I have carefully gone through the case records, and find that the appeal has been filed on 01.01.2025 against the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 which as per ST-4 is said to have been communicated to the appellant on 11.10.2024. Even going by the date of effective communication the appeal has been filed after a delay of 20 days. The appellant has cited medical reasons for the delay in their delay condonation application. They re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification No. 09/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016, the reach of mega exemption notification has been limited and confined to the provisions contained under clause no. 12A. The plain reading of the same reveals that the exemption provided has been limited on specific activities for the contract which were entered prior to 01.03.2015. In this connection I observe that the appellant have not proved that the agreement were entered prior to the specific date as give under clause no. 12A of the notification ibid. Thus, I find that the services provided to Anganwadi Kendra during the period 2016-17 were not covered under mega exemption notification, as amended. The relevant provisions of the same is given as under- 12A. Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of- (a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession: (b) a structure meant predominantly for use as (i) an educational, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....htly held liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 20112/- (Rs. 18777/- for providing WCS + Rs. 1335/- for legal expense). 5.10 Thus I find that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly deduced the service tax to the tune of Rs. 20112/- which the appellant is liable to pay alongwith interest and penalty under section 75 and 78 of the Act, respectively. I also agree with the Adjudicating Authority with regard to the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10000/- each under section 77(1)(a), 77(1)(c) and 77(1)(d) and late fee of Rs. 100000/-under section 70 of the Act. 6.0 Therefore, in the light of discussions made in the preceding paras, I find no anomaly in the impugned order and hence reject the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms." 4.3 I find that the total amount of demand for tax involved in the present appeal is Rs.20,112/- with penalties of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 77(1)(a), 77(1)(c) and 77(1)(d) of the Act and late fee of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 70 of the Act. The total tax involved in the present appeal is much less than Rs.2 lakhs. 4.4 Hence, I do not find the appeal need be admitted by Tribunal (....