2026 (9) TMI 1757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. We find that despite the service of notice, there was no representation from the Appellant and many opportunities given by the Bench also did not result in any representation. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the Appeal on merits. 3. Smt. G. Krupa, Ld. Departmental Representative took us through the Order-in-Original and impugned Order-in-Appeal (supra) and the relevant paragraphs therein and pleaded to uphold the demand confirmed in the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the Order-in-Original as well as the impugned Order-in-Appeal. A perusal of the Order-in-Original reveals that the Appellant was rendering 'Rent-a-Cab service' and during scrutiny of the periodical ST-3 Returns of the Appellant for the periods Apr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to have filed FORM A-1 which is issued by the Specified Officer of SEZ; the same clearly indicates the name of the Appellant as providing 'Rent-a-cab service'. 9. We find that there is no dispute that the service provided by the Appellant is an 'Authorized Service' as per FORM A-1 issued by the Specified Officer of SEZ and the Department, other than merely denying that the Appellant did not provide 'Rent-a-cab service' within the SEZ area, has not placed any documentary evidence in support and the First Appellate Authority has even ignored FORM-A1 which is issued by the Authorized Officer. The only reason for the Adjudicating Authority to deny the benefit is that 'Rent-a-cab service' was not utilized within the SEZ area, is clearly a bas....