2014 (2) TMI 813

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the net value of the taxable service and it is this value which they reflected in the ST-3 returns. If this is so, the extended period of recovery of service tax would not be applicable and penalty under Section 78 also would not be attracted. But this point has nowhere been discussed either in the order-in-original or in the order-in-appeal. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision - Decided in favor of assessee.
Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Khanna, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri R. Puri, AR JUDGEMENT Per Rakesh Kumar: The appellants are engaged in providing of photography service, which attracts service tax. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 010 by which the service tax demand of Rs.78,513/- was confirmed against the appellant along with interest and the amount already deposited was appropriated and besides this, penalty was imposed under Section 76 as well as 78. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) while the service tax demand along with interest and, imposition of penalty under Section 78 was upheld, penalty under Section 76 of the Act was set aside. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri R.K. Khanna, CA, ld. counsel for the appellant pleaded that the difference between the value of taxable services mentioned in the ST-3 Returns and as mentioned in the balance sheet was only for the reas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... able. 4. Sh. R.Puri, the learned DR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. In this case, the appellants contention is that difference between the value of the taxable services as reported in ST-3 return and as given in the balance sheet was on account of non-inclusion of the value of the materials in the value of the taxable service for the purpose of payment of service tax. If this is so, there would be justification in the appellants plea that during the period of dispute, on account of conflicting decisions on this issue, there was a doubt and, therefore, based on a series of the judg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X