9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endition of the service. In view of this position in law, the assumption to the contrary by the learned primary and appellate Authorities that the appellant is liable to levy and collection of service tax, at the rate prevalent on the date of receipt of consideration for the taxable service provided, is fundamentally misconceived and unsustainable. Since both the authorities have recorded that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... huram :- The order dated 22/03/11 passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range IV, Division I, New Delhi confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 81,079/- apart from penalty under Section 76 and interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad IV, vide the order dated 27/02/13. Rs. 13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile noticing the claim of the noticee (of having provided the service prior to the date of increase of the rate of tax), observed that the appellant had not established by any factual data, this claim; and proceeded on the assumption that the relevant date for competing the appropriate rate of tax is the date of receipt of consideration for the service provided and not the date of rendition of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants claim as to having provided the taxable service prior to increase in the rate of taxation; and since the learned Counsel of the appellant Shri Batra contends that there is sufficient and credible evidence to establish this claim, we consider it appropriate to remit the matter to the appellate Authority, to ascertain whether the taxable services were provided by the appellant prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
