9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority appellant produced photocopies of the documents and now the applicant has produced the original also in view of this the applicant pleads remand in this regard. Suppression of value of taxable service - demand confirmed - Held that:- As found in audit report there is mention in respect of non-taxable services and not of taxable service hence, order is set aside. Matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority, Appeal is disposed by way of remand. - ST/683 of 2009 (DB) - - - Dated:- 14-7-2011 - SHRI S. S. KANG, SHRI MATHEW JOHN, JJ. Appearance Shri Rahul Kaushik,, Advocate - for the appellant. Shri Amrish Jain, SDR - for the respondent. Per S.S.Kang: Heard both sides. Appellant fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xty three thousand seven hundred ninety four only) is being imposed upon M/s BSNL, O/o GMTC, Raj Nagar Telephone Exchange Building, Ghaziabad for the above contravention of CCR and ST Rules under the provisions of Rule 15(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as discussed supra. 6. Penalty of Rs.200 for every day from the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount of service tax/mis-utilisation of credit (upto 17.04.06) and w.e.f. 18.04.06, penalty of Rs.200 per day during which such non-payment/mis-utilisation continues or at the rate of 2% of total tax liability per month, whichever is higher, till date of actual payment /recovery of the amount involved, subject to maximum of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal also in view of this the applicant pleads remand in this regard. 4. In respect of demand of Rs.95,72,918/-, the contention is that this demand is confirmed after taking into figures mentioned in the audit report. The contention is that in the monthly return, the appellant has disclosed that value of exempted services of Rs.1,09,05,257/- whereas in the audit report, the figures of non-taxable services is mentioned as Rs.8,91,15,374/-. The Revenue's demand on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the value of taxable service. The contention is that in the figures given to the audit report, the amount of non-taxable service as mentioned Rs.8,91,15,374/-. Therefore, the demand on the ground that the appellant has suppressed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter back to adjudicating authority to look into this issue afresh. 9. In respect of other demand, we find that the appellant now produced original duty paying documents and therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. 10. Similarly, in respect of the demand on the ground that appellant suppressed the value of taxable service, we have gone through the audit report, there breakup of Revenue submitted at the time of audit, we find mention is in respect of non-taxable services and not of taxable service hence, this issue also requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. In view of this, impugned order is set aside, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issues afresh after affording an oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
