9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments evidencing the payment of service tax and without specifying input services and the input service provider as mandatory under the Cenvat Credit Rules. In spite of this specific allegation in reply to show cause notice appellant had not contested this averment in the reply to show cause notice nor in the written submission filed at the time of personal hearing. In the appeal before us the appellant in the grounds of appeal has challenged this demand but had not produced any evidence as mentioned in the show cause notice regarding the payment of service tax. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders where these demands are confirmed - Decided against the assessee. - Appeal No. ST/306 & 307/2009-Mum. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.). The Honble High Court held that the recipient of service is not liable to pay service tax in respect of the taxable services received from abroad prior to 18.4.2006. In the present case the demand is prior to the 18.4.2006. The appeal filed by the Union of India against the decision of Honble Bombay High Court is dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court reported as Union of India Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association reported in 2010 (17) STR J57 (S.C.). 6.In respect of the demand which is confirmed after denying the credit of service tax availed by the applicant. The contention is that adjudicating authority held that appellant had not disputed this demand. The contention is that during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands of service tax which are confirmed on the basis of reverse charge mechanism are not sustainable and the consequential penalties are also set aside. 9.In respect of the demand of ₹ 14,23,078/- and ₹ 57,63,677/- which are confirmed after denying credit of service tax availed by the appellant. We find that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order specifically held that these demands were neither disputed by the appellant in the written submission nor during the personal hearing. The adjudicating authority further held that the credit has been availed and utilized without any document evidence for the payment of service tax and without specifying the input service. The only contention of appellant is that during au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
