9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed appeals against the impugned order-in-original. 2. The brief facts of the case in this matter are as follows:- M/s Shiva Industrial Security Agency (Gujarat) Pvt Ltd. (SISAPL) and M/s Shiva Industrial Security Agency (SISA) the Appellants are engaged in providing of security agency services to their various customers all over India through their branch offices. Both the firms are functioning from their common corporate office situated at SISA House , R. S. No. 71, Sameer Complex, Navsarjan Society, Pandesara, Surat. The security agency services provided by M/s SISAPL & M/s. SISA are chargeable to service tax under Security Agency Services. M/s SISAPL & M/s. SISA are registered with the department vide Service Tax Registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellants are before us. Revenue also filed an appeal against dropping of demand of Service Tax in respect of services provided to SEZ units, extending of the cum-duty benefit to the appellants, and less demand due to wrong computation. 3. Heard both sides. The Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that they have paid an amount of Rs. 7.89 Crores against the demand of Rs. 8.72 Crores, before issuance of the Show Cause Notice, as far as SISPAL is concerned. Similarly, they have paid an amount of Rs. 1.26 Crores against the demand of Rs. 1.98 Crores on SISA before issuance of Show Cause Notice. He submits that it is only the remaining amount of less than Rs. 1 Crore in both cases which is being contested for vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the appellant had not disclosed their full service income in their ST-3 returns as is evident from the balance sheet and therefore, the extended period is rightly invokable for the subsequent period upto 2009. The Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that the Revenue has also filed an appeal on the ground that the dropping of demand pertaining to the services rendered to SEZ units by the Appellants by the adjudicating authority is not correct. He also submits that department is contesting cum-duty benefit. He further submits that there are computation mistakes in quantifying Service Tax liability. 6. We find that the appellants have paid an amount of about 90% of the duty demanded before issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
