9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri S. Misra, Addl. Commr. (A.R) JUDGEMENT Per DR.D.M. MISRA; This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.2,57,95,635/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty under Section 76 (not quantified) and Rs.5,000/- penalty under Section 77 (2) of Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Chartered Accountant Shri A.K. Agarwal for the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the taxable value of Rs.1.58 crores had been taken twice resulting into excess demand of Rs.14.36 Lakhs. Similarly, in relation to work order No. 3/1A/07 dated 09.10.2007, the value of work order was shown as Rs.2.13 crores, whereas, the correct value should be Rs.2.50 Lakhs resulting into an excess demand of Rs.26.18 Lakhs.In relation to demand of Rs.6.00 Lakhs on Commercial and Industrial co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their reply nor did attend the personal hearing. 3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the claims now made by the Ld. Chartered Accountant for the applicant had not been placed before the adjudicating authority either by filing the reply to the show cause notice or appearing before the Ld. Commissioner during the adjudication proceeding, therefore, the same cannot be verified at this stage. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lakh approx..; the applicant claims that around Rs.40.00 Lakhs is due to computation error and Rs.6.00 Lakhs is not chargeable to service tax. We find that issues now raised before this forum had not been earlier raised before the Ld. Commissioner. Ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellant could not place sufficient reasons as to why the records could not be produced before the Ld. Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
