9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice, i.e almost a year. Further, the Counsel for the appellant makes the concession by stating that in the facts and circumstances, the appellant will not be claiming any refund of amount (tax) and interest already deposited. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed in favour of the appellant. - Tribunal has only seen the sample bills produced before it. Further, the impugned order is also silent as to the material facts. In this view of the matter, I remand the issue limited to re-calculation of the tax, to the adjudicating authority - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/677/12 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2014 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial),J. For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007. It is further stated that they were ignorant on Service Tax liability and accordingly, they did not obtain registration and on pointing out by the officer, they obtained registration in Nov, 2008, Mrs. Manda Jagannath Mhatre, proprietor appellant' also submitted in her statement that they had charged Service Tax since October, 2007 and the same was not deposited, but was deposited only after obtaining registration in November, 2008 for the period October, 07 to December, 09. The Revenue in these circumstances, issued show-cause notice dated 30.3.2011 on the appellant asking her to show cause as to why Service Tax amount of ₹ 3,04,897/- for the period October, 2007 to Sept, 2008 be not demanded and recovered. Further propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed penalty under Section 70 was ₹ 2000/- and it was harsh and disproportionate to impose penalty of ₹ 1 lakh for non-filing of returns. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal in part setting aside the penalty of ₹ 1 lakhs under Section 70 and confirmed the order imposing other penalties. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant among others have urged that the appellant is a land looser, who has lost her land for setting up of the company, Ispat Industries Ltd. and on compassionate ground they have given un-skilled work user on job basis. Further, the appellant has studies only upto 8 th standard in Marathi medium and does not know English. It is fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting and transportation of sugarcane and consideration for the same was on the tonnage basis, no nexus was found between the consideration paid and man-power supply and accordingly, it was held that there is no manpower supply or recruitment. The appellant further relies on the ruling in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar), wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the facts that Service Tax and interest for belated payments were paid before issue of show-cause notice held that under the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, the matter stands concluded and further issued stricture observing that in such circumstances, the authorities have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
