9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded back to Adjudicating Authority for examination without expressing any views. - Appeal No. ST/11079-11080/2013, Appeal No. ST/11341/2013 - Order No. A/11502-11504/2015 - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Hon ble Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M, Saleem, Hon ble Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Anand Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sameer Chitkara, Authorised Representative ORDER Per P. M. Saleem The subject appeals are filed against the same order-in-original, and therefore, they are taken up together for disposal. Both the assessee (called as Appellant) and Revenue (called as Respondent) have filed appeals against the impugned order-in-original. 2. The brief facts of the case in this m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Liability. By the impugned order-in-original, the adjudicating authority confirmed the Service Tax liability of ₹ 8.72 Crores on SISAPAL and appropriated ₹ 7.89 Crores paid before the search was conducted, against the said liability. He also confirmed Service Tax liability of ₹ 1.98 Crores on SISA and appropriated ₹ 1.26 Crores paid before the search was conducted, against the said liability. He further demanded interest, and imposed penalty equivalent to the amount of duty under Section 75 of the Act. He also imposed penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants are before us. Revenue also filed an appeal against dropping of demand of Service Tax in respect of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use Notice issued on 22.10.2011. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue vehemently contests the arguments of the appellants and draws our attention to Para 20 of the impugned order in original wherein Major Sushilkumar Pyarelal Sharma, the Director of M/s. SISPAL and the Proprietor of M/s. SISA, admitted that they had filed the half yearly ST-3 returns for both the companies up to September 2005 only, and the half yearly ST-3 returns for subsequent period for both the companies have not been furnished with the Department till the time of investigation. He also 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, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
