9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts including the agreement, which was in July, 2006. Nevertheless, the show-cause notice came to be issued only in June 2008. This delay is not satisfactorily explained in the show-cause notice or in the Order-in-original. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery allowed - ST/144/2012 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2012 - P.G. Chacko And M. Veeraiyan, JJ. Appellant Rep by: Mr. V. Raghuraman, Adv. Respondent Rep by: Ms Sabrina Cano, Superintendent (AR) Per: P.G. Chacko: This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver and stay in respect of an amount of Rs.30,23,930/- demanded from them towards service tax and education cess and in respect of the penalties imposed on them under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,14,76,500/- and software licensor fee of Rs.13 lakhs collected per annum by the appellant were not included in the gross taxable value in the relevant ST-3 returns. The impugned demand is on the total amount not included in the gross taxable value for the period of dispute. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that the relevant show-cause notice was issued on 25/06/2008 by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the alleged ground of suppression of value of taxable service. We further note that the alleged suppression of value was detected by the auditors of the Department in July, 2006 and that, in answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.15 lakhs, were the consideration for rendering any advice, consultancy or technical assistance related to conceptualization, devising, development, modification, rectification or upgradation of any working system of BITS, Pilani and, therefore, the demand on such amount under the above head is not sustainable on facts or in law. This plea has been contested by the learned Superintendent (AR) on the strength of the findings recorded by the original and appellate authorities. 4. After considering the submissions, we find that the entire demand is based on suppression of value found by the authorities below. The substantial question is whether the amounts collected by the appellant from BITS, Pilani other than management consultant fee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
