PRABHA TELE COMMUNICATION Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel Shri K.K. Anand had withdrawn his appearance in this case by an application filed on 21st July, 2010 mentioning that there is no cooperation from his client to get instructions. Therefore, matter was adjourned for hearing for today. Today, no one is present for the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant in this case failed to appear before the learned adjudicating authority to prove his stand. It is also recorded that hearing was granted de novo due to change of adjudicating authority. He came to conclusion that there was a liability of service tax on the appellant for providing telecommunication service as telegraph authority. We find the meaning of such authority from the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 which was adopted by the Finance Act, 1994. When there was no anomaly in interpretation the authority proceeded for quantification of demand. There was no specific reply and no evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that service tax was paid. Finding that no service tax was paid to the treasury adjudication was completed with service tax with other consequences as follows:

(3.) LEARNED Appellate authority held that the appellant shall fall under first proviso to Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and shall be liable to pay service tax. The authority also found that taxable service was provided by the appellant. There was no evidence before him to notice that there were less than 300 lines provided by the appellant. Show cause notice alleged that there was suppression of facts and the appellant could not come out with clean hand to place any evidence in support of his claim. The appellant's claim that it has provided less than 300 lines was discarded and providing of 500 lines was upheld. In contradiction, no evidence was adduced to the learned appellate authority about the capacity utilised. The appellants claimed that the records for the subsequent period was burnt and no FIR was filed in that respect. Conduct of the appellant become questionable before the learned first appellate authority. Xerox of letter from SDE, BSNL produced could not come to the rescue of the appellant. When the appellant failed to explain its matter before the appellate authority below and also no instruction are given to its advocate to pursue its case and absence of appellant before the Tribunal appears to be abuse of process of law. When such an casual approach of the appellant comes to notice we do not consider it proper to keep the matter pending.