2006 (2) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e tax of about Rs.24,000/- and imposition of equal penalty. The demand was raised by invoking the extended period provided under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. The demand is being challenged only on the ground of limitation. 3. The demand relates to service tax payable on the value of service rendered to registered dealers. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the facts of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... registered dealer under that Col., made mis-statements to the Revenue. 5. I have perused the records. The return in question has specific headings: Col.3 for value of taxable service rendered, Col.4 for amount of service 'tax payable and Col.7 (2) for service tax paid. Col.5 is for service tax adjusted under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6. Under Col.5, the appellant stated the value of services rendere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at heading were always much higher than service tax payable) but to Registered Dealers, as mentioned by the appellant. Thus, there is merit in the appellant's contention that no mis-statement was being made. There was only a failure to discharge the tax liability correctly because of a misunderstanding that appellant was not to pay tax as receipts for services rendered to Registered Dealers. The f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X