9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e investigations including a search at the premises of the Appellant. Based on evidences gathered an SCN was issued to the Appellant which was adjudicated vide order dated 06-03-07. The operative part of the order is reproduced below:- 1. I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.13,23,058.34 and Education Cess of Rs.13,386.06, total amounting to Rs.13,36,444/- for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.12.2005 sub section (2) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking extended period of limitation. 2. I confirm the recovery of interest under Section 75 of the Act for the confirmed demand of Rs.13,36,444/-. 3. Under Section 76 of the Act, I impose penalty equal to Rs.100/- for everyday during the period til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed below:- The appellant have submitted certificates dated 18.6.2007 and 3.7.2007 issued by Rampaul & Associates, Chartered Accountants, # 189 Sector 40-A, Chandigarh who have certified that an amount of Rs.6,63,048/- as detailed above has been deposited as service tax by M/s Arpit Advertising Chandigarh and by others on behalf of M/s Arpit Advertising Chandigarh and that the information has been compiled from the books and records as produced before them and found to be correct. In the light of the above certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant I accept that the appellant have already discharged their service tax liability of Rs.6,63,048/- and the demand of service tax of that amount was wrongly confirmed. As discuss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the facts. This certificate (enclosed as Annexure A ) is ab-initio void as the figures in column 3 which relates to outstanding amount pending recovery due to legal cases pending in the Courts is the gross amount inclusive of Service Tax and no Commission which actually comes to Rs.1,07,406/-. Whereas, the fact is that Chartered Accountant while calculating the net taxable amounts has wrongly subtracted Rs.7,17,157.80 (instead of Commission of Rs.1,07,406/-). This has resulted in misleading the department by distortion of the figures. Commissioner (Appeals) has been misled while adjudging the case: (ii) Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error of judgment by accepting that Service Tax liability of the party has been paid on h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further highlighted: (v) Commissioner (Appeals) has again committed an error of judgment by adjudging that party was not having intention to evade. It is explicit from the facts and circumstances of the case that party was suppressing taxable value by resorting to colourful devices like Barter Agreement with M/s Kinetic Engg., Pune, Commissioner (Appeals) has completely ignored this fact. 7. The above background does not bring out the case quite clearly. This problem persists through the SCN, Order-in-Original, Order-in-Appeal, Order-in-Review and Appeal Memorandum. 8. Though the information received by the department was very specific, it is seen that the SCN proposed demand based on the figures reported in the bala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
