9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs.1,59,312/- as being paid from the centralised registered unit at Gurgaon and adding an amount of Rs.76,819/- which has been paid for the month of October 2005, the total demand which has been raised in the show cause notice is tallying with the amount paid by the appellant. Thus, the appellant has correctly discharged the Service Tax liability due to the above reason. Impugned order to the extent it upholds that the Service Tax of Rs.1,59,312/- with interest and penalties, is liable to be set aside - Appeal No.ST/497/2012 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2013 - Mr. M.V. Ravindaran, J. For the Appellant: Shri Jigar Shah, Adv. For the Respondent: Shri S.K. Mall, Addl.Commissioner (A.R.). JUDGEMENT Per: M.V. Ravindran: This ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The above observations culminated into the issuance of show cause notice dt.21.05.2009 demanding Service Tax amount of Rs.4,67,671/- under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) along with interest under Section 75 of the Act and also proposing imposition of penalty under Sections 77 78 of the Act. The lower authority vide Order No.92/ST/2010, dt.28.05.2010, confirmed the demand of Rs.4,67,671/-, confirmed the interest at appropriate rate on the tax amount demanded and imposed penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 2.2 Being aggrieved with the above order of the lower authority, the appellant filed an appeal memorandum and stay application before the Commissioner (Appeals) qua this authority. Consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would submit that the appellant is not able to justify whether the amount of Rs.1,59,312/- was in respect of Kanda unit and for the period January 2005 to March 2005. It is his submission that the first appellate authority has recorded the findings correctly. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, I find that as regards confirmation of demand of Rs.1,59,312/- along with interest and penalties imposed, has recorded the following findings. 9.2 As regards the first ground at Sr.No.(i) in Para 9.1 above, I find that the appellant has contended that the discrepancy in the period mentioned in challan dt.15.06.2005 happened due to a minor clerical error and that the amount is completely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m January to March 2005 also. There is no separate indication of the same in the ST-3 return also, which rebuts the appellant s claim. Had there occurred a genuine clerical mistake in the challan dt.15.06.2005, then the appellant ought to have specifically mentioned the Service Tax payment details pertaining to January-March 2005 in the ST-3 return (which was filed in October 2005), in order to clarify the error occurred earlier while filing the details in the challan dt.15.06.2005. Therefore, the plea that due to confusion among trade regarding GTA service payment and clerical error, the Service Tax pertaining to January-March 2005 was paid in May 2005, is not sustainable. I find that the appellant has deliberately not paid the Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
