9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs.44.56 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78, penalty imposed under Section 76 (not quantified) and penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the ld. Advocate has submitted that during the relevant period from 2004-05 to 2008-09, the Applicant had rendered various services unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Advocate submits that the same is contrary in nature as the ld. Adjudicating Authority at one place observed that the Applicant had submitted necessary work orders and after scrunity, the demand has been worked out and other places, he observed that the work orders were not submitted. The ld. Advocate submits that the Applicant Company is facing severe financial problems, consequently, they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. Prima-facie, we find that the show-cause notices were issued to the Applicant alleging short-payment of service tax on the basis of difference between the gross taxable value shown in the ST-3 Returns and receipts shown in the Balance Sheet. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the burden lies on the assessee to explain to the Department adduci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the documents and evidences, he has recorded a categorical finding on the liability of service tax against the Appellant in a tabular form at internal page 13 of the order. The ld. Advocate, during the course of hearing before us, also could not advance any substantial evidence in support of his claim that the difference in the value as shown in the ST-3 Returns and that reflected in the balan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
