9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Sanjay Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran Both Revenue and the assessee/appellant are in appeal against order dated 02/08/2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. The assessee/appellant is engaged in providing taxable service under the category of security and manpower supply service. The dispute arose regarding the service tax liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that they maintained two registers by the name 'bill book' as well as 'receipt record'. It appears that the Revenue has taken both the accounts to compute the taxable value. As such, some duplication of entries happened while such computation of the tax value. The learned Consultant submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned order made summary assertion while reducing the tax amount f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility except for general observations. Further, the adjustment of Rs. 15.97 lakhs as paid tax against the confirmed tax liability is not justified. The tax which was discharged by the assessee/appellant was in normal course and that too for the period not covered by the dispute were also considered without any justification. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have given more attention to the data ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be based on documents maintained by the assessee/appellant and as cross verified by the Jurisdictional officer. Further, various claims made by the assessee/appellant were not discussed for a conclusion. As such, we find that the grievance of both the sides are justified. 5. Regarding adjustment towards service tax already paid, we find that the impugned order did not elaborate the basis on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
