9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mobilisation advances which had been taxed twice is maintained - there is a denial of CUM tax benefit even though it is stated to be given to the appellant, the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to the limited extent of considering the CUM tax benefit - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/28172/2013 - A/30177/2017 - Dated:- 9-2-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. A.S.K. Swetha, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. M. Chandra Bose, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Order Per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.,] 1. The above appeal is filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the demand, interest and penalty imposed. 2. The appellant is engaged in pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to para 6 of the show cause notice and explained that the department has taken the taxable value from the bank statements of the appellant to be ₹ 1,68,35,716/-. This value according to the department includes service tax portion also. But without giving the benefit of CUM tax, the department has calculated the service tax payable on this value and thereby the demand is arrived to be ₹ 19,43,354/-. That if CUM tax benefit is extended to the appellant the demand would be reduced by ₹ 17,41,033/-. The Ld. Counsel pleaded that the matter may be remanded for considering the CUM tax benefit. It is also argued by the Counsel that the authorities below failed to grant the reduced penalty under sub-section (1) of Section 78. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48,06,619 12.36% 5,94,098 3 2008-09 32,59,915 12.36% 4,02,925 4 2008-09 6,56,805 12.36% 81,181 5 2009-10 44,109,982 10.30% 4,54,228 6 2010-11 (Upto Dec 10) 21,177,916 10.30% 224,325 TOTAL Rs.1,68,35,716 Rs.19,43,354 The celluation of appellant after taking CUM tax benefit: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
