2017 (5) TMI 821

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aintained by it. However, without considering the said statement and the other documents submitted by the appellant, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of 93,850/-, which according to us is not sustainable - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B.Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ort agency was allowed to be deducted from the confirmed demand and the balance amount of ₹ 93,850/- was confirmed on the ground that the appellant did not pay such service tax into the Government account. 2. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that though service tax liability on the taxable value of ₹ 72,73,373/-, was computed by the Department, but the appellant ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paid service tax to the tune of ₹ 309/-. On perusal of the documents available in case file, we find that Annexure - 7 was prepared by the appellant based on the books of accounts maintained by it. However, without considering the said statement and the other documents submitted by the appellant, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of ₹ 93,850/-, which according to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X