9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the ST-3 returns for the purpose of discharging service tax liability. The finding given by the first appellate authority does not seem to be in accordance with the law because under the prevailing provision of Sec. 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 service tax was required to be paid by the appellant only on the amount received from the service recipient. It some more credit has been taken by the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that M/s. Sos Finance Ahmedabad took cenvat credit shown on the invoices whereas the provider of the services M/s. Sos Enterprise, Rajkot actually paid less service tax. The case of the appellant is that they paid the service tax on the amount received from M/s. Sos Finance Ahmedabad and they cannot be made to pay more service tax on the basis of excess service tax credit taken by M/s. Sos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity that he has held the verification done by the adjudicating authority to be correct and accordingly upheld order-in-original. It is observed from para 9 of the order-in-original dated 31.10.11 that adjudicating authority has taken a view that sister concern M/s. Sos Finance Ahmedabad has not reversed the excess cenvat credit taken and accordingly he cannot accept the value given in the ST-3 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first adjudicating authority the order-in-Appeal passed by the first appellate authority is set aside and the case is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to decide the case on the basis of the above observations. The issue regarding imposition of penalties is also kept open which should also been been decided by the first adjudicating authority in denova proceeding. After t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
