2018 (5) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l amount of ₹ 1.60 crores, only on account of factual finding that the petitioner has raised invoices and bills on the recipients of the service, for payment of the service tax also. The fact that the appellant was not able to recover money from the service recipients, cannot be a matter of concern for the Department. If the appellant had been successful in recovery of the money from the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - was slapped on them. An equivalent amount was imposed as penalty apart from other levies. 4. As against the said order, the appellant filed a statutory appeal before CESTAT, after making a deposit of ₹ 2.00 crores. Actually, the appellant was obliged to deposit only 7.5% of the disputed liability. But the appellant was gracious enough to deposit more than the statutory limit of 7.5%. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nly on account of factual finding that the petitioner has raised invoices and bills on the recipients of the service, for payment of the service tax also. The fact that the appellant was not able to recover money from the service recipients, cannot be a matter of concern for the Department. 7. To put it differently, if the appellant had been successful in recovery of the money from the service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X