9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd debit side has not been considered. The practice of discharging service tax against the advances had been dis-continued w.e.f. 01.04.2012 and the service tax has been paid by the applicant from that date against the deposit received from the port users. - taking into consideration that there would not be any liability of the applicant as on date as the entire amount of advances collected from the port users had been subjected to service tax and have been paid by them, thus, the applicant could able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of predeposit of dues adjudged. - Stay granted - Appeal No.552/11 - ORDER NO.S-493/KOL/13 - Dated:- 12-7-2013 - DR. D.M. MISRA AND DR. I.P. LAL, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Pulak Kr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not considered. Further, he has submitted that details break-up, client-wise, had been submitted by them during the course of hearing before the ld. Adjudicating Authority in the form of Annexure A-3 to their reply. The contention is that thus observation of the ld. Commissioner that no evidence was filed in support of reconciliation, is therefore, not correct. The contention is that there could be some delay in discharging of service tax, but the applicants have been maintaining the Accounts of Deposit and Debit Entry against the services received by the respective port users, hence, there cannot be any liability of service tax on the applicant. The ld.C.A. has categorically stated that the system of payment of service tax after the bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the show-cause notice has been issued to the applicant alleging that they have received certain amounts under head Ad-hoc cargo and Deposit Account (Sundry Depositors) etc. for the period from 2008-09 to 2009-10. However, the data adopted in computing the demand was relating to the summary journal for the month of April, 2010. The finding of the ld. Commissioner is that it is a clerical mistake. Prima-facie, we cannot accept such explanation that it is clerical mistake. Also, we find force in the argument of the ld. C.A. that only the credit side of the journal ledger has been considered and debit side has not been considered. The ld. C.A. for the applicant has made a categorical statement that the practice of discharging servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
