9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) I confirm demand of Rs. 14,13,344/- against the notice under Section 111(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice should pay the same forthwith. (iii) I order recovery of interest from the notice on Rs. 14,13,344/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 14,13,344/- on the notice under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, this penalty would be reduced to 25% i.e. Rs. 3,53,336/- if the reduced penalty is also paid along with Service Tax of Rs. 14,13,344/- and interest on Rs. 14,13,344/- within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The dispute involved in the case is that due to difference of taxable value taken by the department and as claimed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received towards non taxable service as taxable only on the ground that the amounts received prior to 1st July 2010. It is her submission that the demand was confirmed mainly on the grounds of unacceptability of the certificate of architect for want of the address of the Council. The appellant's having incurred certain expenditure such as Doors, Windows, Electric Meters in financial year 2011-12, which indicates non-completion of construction. She submits that both these grounds are not flowing from the show cause notice therefore it is beyond the scope of show cause notice. She submits that the Architect's Certificate has been discarded by the adjudicating authority only for want of the address of the Council where the architect is regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not considered the quantification correctly. I also find that the architect certificate was discarded only for want of address of the Council where the architect is registered. In this regard, the appellant has submitted the true copy of the registration of the Council if it is so the architect certificate cannot be brushed aside. Thus, it is found that the adjudicating authority has not properly verified the material evidence produced by the appellant for challenging the quantification. I am of the view that on submission of the evidence by the appellant, if the adjudicating authority had any different view, an opportunity should had been given to the appellant to explain the correct quantification of the demand and thereafter the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
