9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed by way of remand. - ST/232/2006-DB - - - Dated:- 1-9-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member None For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok K. Arya M/s. BSNL is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.150/2006 dated 18.5.2006 whereunder part demand of ₹ 6,50,406/- has been remanded to the original adjudicating authority for redetermination and the remaining demand of service tax confirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 3.1.2006 has been sustained. 2. The brief facts are that: (i) The appellant BSNL provide telephone/telegraph services and are holders of registration certificate for service tax under the category of telephone and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod from 2002-03 and 2003-04 (up to February 2004), it was observed that the assessee have declared the value of service under the category of telegraph service which was less than the actual realisation as per the trial balance income under the category of telegraph. The amount declared to have been realised on account of telegraph service for the year 2002-2003 in the ST-3 returns was ₹ 15,70,260/- and the service tax paid was ₹ 78,513/- but as per the payment schedule for the said period, the amount actually realised on account of the said service was ₹ 39,82,233/- and the service tax to be paid at the rate of 5% was ₹ 1,99,112/-. The differential service tax payable on the same is ₹ 1,20,599/-. Similarly fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The appellant has mainly contested in the appeal as follows: (i) The appellant had paid an amount of ₹ 75,26,000/- towards the service tax payable in March 2002 as against the actual amount payable which in fact was only ₹ 70,28,997/- thereby there was an excess amount of ₹ 4,97,003/- which was lying with the Department. Considering this fact, the appellant has adjusted this excess paid amount by paying less for the subsequent month. (ii) However, both the orders passed by the authorities below hold that the said adjustment on the part of the appellant looks reasonable, on the other hand, they have held that, the adjustment made by the appellant is not sustainable as per Service Tax Rules. (iii) The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
