9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a against the premises, the bank was discharging the service tax - I do not agree with the lower authorities’ rejection of this claim of the appellants only on the ground that letter is not sufficient to prove the payment of service tax. If the lower authority has any doubt on this letter, he could have asked report from the Jurisdictional service tax department of the bank whether the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India. The demand of service tax was confirmed for the period April 2010 to March 2011 of ₹ 7,19,057/- and amount of ₹ 3,83,160/- already paid by the appellants was appropriated interest was also demanded under Section 75. The penalties were also imposed under Section 76 and 78. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk of India has already paid the service tax the demand should be reduced to that extent. The adjudicating authority rejected this plea on the ground that the letter given by the Central Bank of India is sufficient proof of payment of service tax, which is not proper. He further submits the penalty imposed under Section 17 should be waived in terms of Section 18 as there was no malafide intentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to prove the payment of service tax. If the lower authority has any doubt on this letter, he could have asked report from the Jurisdictional service tax department of the bank whether the payment of service tax shown as paid by the bank is correct or otherwise. Therefore, in my view the demand must be reduced to the extent of the service tax paid by the Central Bank of India. For this purpose, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
