9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - appellant directed to make pre-deposit - ST/2136/2011 - 225/2012 - Dated:- 10-2-2012 - Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Neethu, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Subrina Cano, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent. [Order]. The appeal and stay application are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 12/2011 (T) S.T., dated 4-5-2011, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Guntur. The stay application is taken up for consideration. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, M/s. Imperial Granites Pvt. Ltd. engaged the services of commission agents abroad for procuring of export orders and paid commission to the agents for the services rend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posals in the notice were confirmed by the adjudication order No. 11/2010 (S.T.), dated 31-12-2010. The appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order upheld the order of the lower adjudicating authority. Hence, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that they are challenging levy of service tax. Inasmuch as the services were rendered abroad, they are not liable to pay service tax in India and the demand is unsustainable in law. She also submits that the demand is time-barred inasmuch as the show-cause notice was issued for the additional amount after a lapse of more than one year. She further submits that they had no intention to evade payment of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Revenue. Therefore, this plea adduced by the learned advocate for the appellant has no basis at all. Regarding the issue of time bar, it is noticed that the error was detected by the department on their own. The appellants had made a wrong entry in their ledger accounts and on the basis of wrong entry, earlier show-cause notice was issued. Subsequently, after finalization of the balance sheet the appellant had confirmed that the higher amount shown in the balance sheet was the correct commission amount paid to the foreign service provider. On the higher amount paid, the department sought additional service tax liability. Therefore, the appellant s plea that the demand is hit by limitation of time cannot be accepted. Inasmuch as the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
