9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions during the impugned period to support their claim that some of these considerations were pertaining to the period when lesser rate of tax was applicable. The impugned order also notes that the appellant did not produce the records for post-paid SIM, details of bill collection and sale of pre-paid SIM before the authorities. We note that the rate of tax was enhanced with due announcements by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income under various headings. The rate of service tax payable was enhanced from 5% to 8% w.e.f. 14.05.2003. The appellant did not discharge service tax with enhanced rate and as such, proceedings were initiated against them for recovery of short paid tax amount. The impugned order confirmed the Original Authority s order regarding such short payment except waiving the penalty under Section 76 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perused the appeal records. 5. Admittedly, the effective rate of service tax was enhanced from 5% to 8% w.e.f. 14.05.2003.The liability on the appellant arose on such account only. Regarding calculation error, we have noticed that the same has been specifically dealt with in the impugned order. Though the amount received is shown wrongly for the month of August, 2003, the tax liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge tax payers under the category of telephone services, is expected to discharge correct tax liability after the enhancement. Their plea regarding unsustainbility of demand for extended period cannot be considered, at this stage, in view of the reasons recorded in the impugned order. The service tax as per the statutory rate should have been discharged by the appellant. They did not even claim ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
