9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted before the Tribunal - demand upheld. As regards the confirmation of demand Approximately of ₹ 10,41,458/- availed on invoices not found - Held that: - the Adjudicating Authority should have extended an opportunity to appellant to produce the documents - matter placed on remand. Appeal disposed off. - Appeal No. E/30362/2017 - Final Order No. A/30033/2018 - Dated:- 18-1-2018 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member ( Judicial ) Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per: M. V. Ravindran ] This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. HYD-EXCUS-001-COM-049-16-17 dated 27.10.2016. 2. Relevant facts that arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax paid on input services which are related to civil work (brick work) or painting work of new construction. It is his submission that they had reversed entire amount of credit, at the same time they contesting this amount on limitation. It is his submission on limitation the Adjudicating Authority has not given any findings which indicates that the contentions raised by the appellants were accepted. He would submit during the period in question, they were filing monthly returns regularly the audit units conducted audit regularly no points were raised by the audit party. It is his submission the case in the favour of appellant. 4. As regards the demand of further ₹ 10,41,458/-, it is his submission, the Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not controverted before the Tribunal. Accordingly, I hold that the confirmation of the demand of ₹ 10,36,801/- along with interest correct. As regards the point raised by the Learned Counsel on limitation for this amount, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has also recorded the extended period was correctly invoked and in my view the said findings do not require any interference. It is his submission that the appellant paid entire service tax of ₹ 10,36,801/- and along with interest and 25% amount of penalty, if it is so then the issue on this point stands concluded as per provisions of the Central Excise Ac, 1944, and nothing survives. 7. As regards the confirmation of demand Approximately of ₹ 10,41,458/- avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
