9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Amrish Jain, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The appellant provide the service in relation to telephone connection to their client. The period of dispute in this case is from April 2003 to March 2004. The appellant as per the provisions of Service Tax Rules, 1994 are required to deposit the Service tax in respect of a particular month by 5th of next month and since this Service tax is payable on the amount received during the month from their customers against the bills raised by them and since the amount collected against the bills, which has to be ascertained from their various branches, cannot be ascertained correctly by the end of the month for whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal along with stay application has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 2.1 Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that, as per the final ST-3 returns submitted by them for the period from April 2003 to March 2004, there was excess payment of Service tax to the tune of Rs. 9,01,102/-, that in the show cause notices, the Service tax had been demanded only on the basis of billed amount and there was no allegation that they have availed any Cenvat credit wrongly, that no other show cause notice for disallowing any allegedly wrongly taken Cenvat credit and for its recovery have been issued, that in view of this, the Commissioner in the impugned order while confirmin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18,69,436/- against the appellant. He, therefore, pleaded that this is not the case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4. There is no dispute that the appellant every month had paid the Service tax on provisional basis on the basis of provisional figures of collection from their customers, as against the invoices raised by them. It is not disputed that assessments during the period of dispute were provisional and no order for finalising the assessment had been passed. In view of this, the issue of two show cause notices for demand of Service tax on the basis of billed amount and adjudication of the same by the impugned order was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
