9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect applicable rate during the half year April to September, 2006. On scrutiny of the ST 3 filed for the relevant period, the Revenue entertained a view that the appellant did not discharge the Service Tax on the enhanced applicable rate of tax and also on the full value of the consideration received. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant which resulted into confirmation of ST demand of Rs. 44,20,576/-. The original authority also imposed penalty under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand. However, he set aside the penalty under section 78 and modified the penalty under section 77. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criteria of rates. The detailed break up of such calculation has been attached with the ST 3 as an annexure by the appellant. The non mentioning of notification No. 1/06 ST in the ST 3 return is due to the fact that the appellant did not avail the said notification for the financial year 2006-2007. However, the receipts for the services rendered prior to 1.4.2006, they did avail the abated rate. The Revenue seeks to deny such abatement only on the ground that the notification was not mentioned in the ST 3 return and there is no linkage for the consideration to the services rendered previously. Learned Counsel further relied on certificate provided by the independent Chartered Accountant which supported the contention of the calculation as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation for such abatement in their ST 3 return. However, the said ST 3 return did contain receipts for the services rendered prior to 1.4.2006. This necessarily lead to present dispute as there is no support by way of mentioning of abatement notification in the ST 3 return. However, the facts remain that the consideration for services rendered prior to 1.4.2006 were also received after 1.4.2006 and applicability of abated rate for the said receipts cannot be questioned. The appellants filed the ST 3 return with details of consideration received and amount of tax paid. They did enclose the annexures to give split up of calculation of applicable rate on which tax has been discharged. To further support, they have submitted certificate of thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
