2010 (1) TMI 197 - AT - Service Tax

Payment of service tax- The facts of the case are that on scrutiny of the service tax record it was noticed that there is the difference between the brokerage amount shown in ST-3 returns and respective ledger account maintained by them. The brokerage as per ST-3 return was Rs. 3, 46, 01, 631 and as per ledger account was Rs. 3, 68, 84, 783 and making the total difference of Rs. 22, 83, 152. A show-cause notice was issued Service Tax was confirmed along with the interest was imposed. Aggrieved from the same the appellant preferred an appeal which was rejected. Aggrieved from the same appellant is before me. Held that- I have gone through the records and found that the appellant has placed the reconciliation statement in support of their claim which needs examination by the lower authorities. After granting the stay I take up the appeal for disposal and find that the case need fresh adjudication after considering the reconciliation statements produced by the appellants. Accordingly I remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of demand of Service Tax with interest and penalty under section 78 and section 76 of the Finance Act.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the confirmation of demand of Service Tax with interest and penalty under the Finance Act. Discrepancies were noted between the brokerage amount shown in ST-3 returns and the ledger account maintained by the appellant. The difference amounted to Rs. 22,83,152. A show-cause notice was issued, and Service Tax was confirmed along with the imposition of interest. The appellant contended that the brokerage income for certain transactions was accounted for in the books of account in a different year from when the service tax was paid, leading to the disparity. The appellant submitted a reconciliation statement of the ledger account and ST-3 returns, which was not considered in the initial decision. The Order-in-Original found that the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence supporting their claim and did not submit required records to the appellate authority. However, upon review, the appellate tribunal found merit in the reconciliation statement provided by the appellant. The tribunal remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to consider the reconciliation statement and granting the appellants an opportunity to present their case within a specified timeframe.