9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Service Tax and the short payment was made good on being pointed out by the Department the Appellant are liable to penalty under Section 76 only. - ST/273/2010 - A-83/KOL/2010 - Dated:- 10-2-2012 - D M Misra, J. For Appellant: Shri N K Chowdhury, Adv. For Respondent: Shri S Chakraborty, AR(Asstt. Commr.) Per: D M Misra: This is an Appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. 70/ST/2010 dated 31.03.2010. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant had taken a Service Tax Registration on 16.06.2005. They have been paying the Service Tax and also filing ST-3 returns with the Department from time to time. On a visit of the Officers to their premises on 03.11.2006, it was noticed that certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within a period of 30 days of the visit of Officers. There was no concealment whatsoever, on their part relating to the gross amount of taxable value; the same are correctly reflected in their Balance Sheet as charged to customers. He has submitted that the entire demand was within the normal period of limitation, even though the extended period of limitation had been invoked in the show cause notice. It is his submission that no facts relating to realization of the value of services provided had been concealed and suppressed from the knowledge of the Department, as the same were duly reflected in the Balance Sheet prepared by their Chartered Accountant. He has submitted that once they were registered with the Central Excise Department, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment. Further, he has submitted that they were operating their services from some unregistered premises, which were not disclosed to the Department. However, he fairly concedes that the gross taxable value received from the business of the said services, had been duly reflected in their Balance Sheet, irrespective of non-disclosure of the premises of rendering the services. He has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Krishna Poduval reported in 2006 (1) STR-185 (Ker.). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The Appellant were registered with the Central Excise Department on their own on 16.06.2005. Theirs is a proprietorship concern and they are requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
