9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant company engaged in providing services under the category of "broadcasting service" has taken registration on 06.08.2001. The appellant failed to pay the service tax payable by them even as per their returns and there were separate proceedings in that connection. The officers who visited the appellant company- premises noticed wide variation between the value of services as per the returns filed by the appellant company and the income reported in the balance sheets. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 16.11.2005 was issued requiring them to show cause why a sum of Rs. 1,98,49,417/- being service tax payable at the rate of 5% up to 13.05.2003 and 8% from 14.05.2003 should not be demanded a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted to be withdrawn. His main grievance is that the Commissioner, while confirming the demand of service tax, failed to allow cenvat credit amounting to about Rs. 4,00,000/on input services on various grounds. 7. learned Departmental Representative, referring to the grounds of appeal, submits that the Commissioner has not quantified the value of time sales attributable to the period prior to 16.07.2001; that he has not verified the receivables shown under the sundry debtors to ascertain the correctness of amount realized, the amount written of, receivables pertaining to bills prior to 16-07.2001; and that he has not verified the ledgers of service tax payable and compared the same with sundry debtor ledger. 8. We have carefully considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the actual monthly receipts after comparing the same with the ST3 returns filed by the assessee. As per the report, the audit scrutinized the invoices issued by the assessee, cash books, bank books, register of sales, individual client ledgers, TDS ledgers, financial statements etc. for calculating the monthly Service tax liability. In order to find the actual receipts each individual client ledgers were also subjected to verification. Since the assessee during the personal hearing made certain representation against the computation of tax liability by the audit team, a further verification of the accounts were carried out and the net tax liability of the assessee during period of the show-cause notice was ascertained. As per the report, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant company is concerned, we find that it is not in dispute that the appellant company has not furnished correct amount of service charges in their returns to the department. It is also not in dispute that service tax demanded is in accordance with the claim made by the appellant supported by year-wise calculation charts which were got verified by the Commissioner by deputing a team of officers. We also note that the burden to prove the claim for benefit of cenvat by producing relevant documents is on the assessee. The Commissioner has allowed the benefit of cenvat credit wherever the documents were found to be satisfactory based on the report by the team of officers who verified the documents. Therefore, further claim for benefit of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
