9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant - the demand confirmed by the lower authorities amounts to duplication of the demand in respect of the amount already paid by the appellant - both the lower authorities have not considered the audit report of Service Tax wing the fact that the amount has been deposited has also been mentioned in the audit report itself - no indication as to why the audit report and the worksheet prepared by the appellant for the purpose of audit is not acceptable to the lower authorities - the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority to adjudicate the matter afresh- in favour of assessee. - ST/107/2012 - A/669/2012-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 10-5-2012 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, J. Shri Vipul Khan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs.1,86,557/- for the years 2004-05 to 2006-07 to the credit of Government within the stipulated time limit. A show cause notice, therefore, was issued to the appellants on 13.04.2009 which was adjudicated vide the impugned order. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.1,86,557/- under Section 73( 1) of the Act; ordered recovery of the interest thereon under Section 75 of the Act and imposed penalties under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Act. 2. The appeal filed against this order has been rejected. 3. Even though the matter was listed only for considering whether the amount deposited is sufficient towards pre-deposit as a condition of hearing the appeal, after hearing both sides, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.1,43,592/- for the period from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 and this amount with interest was deposited and the fact that the amount has been deposited has also been mentioned in the audit report itself. The period covered by the CERA party viz. 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 is also covered by the audit party of the department and therefore it can be said that the department has conducted the verification of the correctness of the ST-3 returns filed and whatever deficiencies were found, the same has been made good by the appellant. Therefore, the demand confirmed by the lower authorities amounts to duplication of the demand in respect of the amount already paid by the appellant. On going through the records, I find that both the lower authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
