9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/87371/2015 - ORDER No.A/88591/16/SMB - Dated:- 18-3-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Ms. Puloma Dalal, C.A. for Appellant Shri S.L. Karoliya, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 43/ST/COMMR/2015 dt.12.08.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Aurangabad, whereby the Ld. Commissioner passed the following order: ORDER (i) I hold that VCES declaration dated 27.12.2013 filed by the notice is substantially false. (ii) I confirm demand of ₹ 14,13,344/- against the notice under Section 111(1) of the Financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt and the figures of value claimed by the appellant. The department has not brought reasons on record prior to issue of show cause notice for considering the declaration as substantially false. She further submits that in response to the show cause notice the appellant made the submissions and submitted the documentary evidence regarding the amount received before 1 st July 2010 which has not been considered. She submits that the demand also includes the amount received during January 2013 to March 2013 i.e. beyond the period covered under VCES and thereby the service tax demand to such extent is without jurisdiction. She further submits that the Ld. Commissioner conceded the amount received towards non taxable service as taxable only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L. Karoliya, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that it is not correct on the part of the appellant to say that the natural justice has not been followed. The adjudicating authority has considered all the material evidence produced before him for passing the impugned order. Therefore the same cannot be interfered. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the appellant have raised various discrepancies in the value taken by the department for confirmation of demand and consequent rejection of VCES declaration. I have observed that the adjudicating authority has not considered the quantification correctly. I als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
