9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur and Karan Sachdeva, Advocates For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Gupta, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- The applicant is praying for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amount of Rs. 1,14,88,808/- confirmed against them alongwith penalty of equivalent amount and additional penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on them vide the impugned order. After hearing both the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards rendering of taxable service. The demand is contested on various following grounds :- (a) the Original Authority while recalculating the demand for the period September 2004 to March 2005 has not taken into account the details furnished by the appellant ; (b) there is a totaling error in the table at para 17 of the order-in-original the total should come as Rs. 1,12,71,852 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they have discharged the service tax on the amount received from M/s Chanakya Communication Network Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak. 3. We find that the Original Authority recorded that the appellant have submitted the copies of ST-3 returns for the relevant period and also submitted details of gross amount received and the service tax payment thereupon. However, he went ahead and recorded that the noticee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant in support of their claim of discharge of service tax on the gross amount received from the distributor during the impugned period by their Chandigarh office. This can be verified from the documents already submitted by the appellant or calling for additional documents, if required to arrive at the correct conclusion. In these set of facts we find it necessary to remand the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
