9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extend period of limitation in the present appeal based on following grounds : (i) That the demand with reference to service tax pertaining to Insurance services rendered prior to 1-7-1994 received after the said date is confirmed on account of absence of requisite documentary evidence (Reference para 9 of the order). (ii) That the demand in respect of the adjustment of tax from one head to another was also not allowed for want of evidence (Reference para 9 of the order). (iii) That the extended period was made applicable on account of suppression and misstatements of facts as figures disclosed in ST-3 return did not tally with other statutory requirements. Further, the appellant has been alleged of actually collecting Rs. 15,29,41,45 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marked as Annexure II. The said return was duly accepted and never objected to by the Department. The finding of the ld. Commissioner at internal page 8 of the order in original marked as Annexure D is that the Group Personal Accident Premium cannot be adjusted with the General Insurance Premium is contrary to the assessment done on consolidated basis by the Departmental authorities and is also against the provisions of law as mentioned above. 4. That with regard to the contention No. (iii) in para 1, the applicants submit that on the basis of the available documents and submissions made, it is wrong to say that the ST-3 return were different from the statutory records and service tax was paid on undervalued figure. It is submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss on account of preparation of the calculation sheet is accepted by the Department itself vide internal page 7 of the order-in-original in respect of the difference in the premium amounts as follow : Month Premium as per calculation sheet Actual Premium Difference (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) June 95 88,349 80,238 8,111 July 95 46,222 1,26,022 79,800 1,34,571 2,06,260 71,689 Further, the order passed in regard to the appeal also fails to mention the difference in calculations anywhere which fact is very vital in the case. (iii) That as discussed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the applicants had paid Rs. 6,17,167/- less as service tax during the aforesaid period. A SCN was issued to the applicant asking them to explain as to why service tax of the above amount should not be collected from them and why interest also should not be recovered and why a penalty should not be imposed. The Tribunal after examining the various submissions made by the applicant and on perusal of the records confirmed the order-in-original. 4. We have heard Shri Sameer Jain, ld. Counsel for the applicants and Shri J. Singh, ld. DR for the respondent. We note that the total premium collected by the applicants during the material period amounted to Rs. 15,29,41,458/- as is evident from the annexure attached with the SCN. This amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y that the premium collected on GPA was not included. No evidence has been produced to show that the difference in figures of premium actually collected and reported in the quarterly returns was correct. Thus, we note that there was no mistake apparent on the face of record. 6. In regard to the contention that the order-in-Appeal is passed without jurisdiction as appeal under Section 73 of Finance Act lies to Commissioner (Appeals) and not to Appellate Tribunal under Section 85 of the said Act, it may be stated that this point was not at all argued at the time of hearing the appeal and therefore, on this count also, no mistake can be attributed in the final order of the Tribunal. 7. We further note that ROM application is nothing but a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
