2018 (6) TMI 713

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntary proof has been placed by the appellants. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that these are not consideration/charges received for the services rendered is not acceptable - demand of tax with interest upheld. Penalty u/s 78 - Held that:- As the appellant has declared the amount in their accounts from where the department has come to know about the receipt of the same, penalty impos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rged the Service Tax on the amount received for such services for the period from May 2002 to February 2004. Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand the service tax of ₹ 23,076/- alongwith interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and the penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, inter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y Service. Though the appellant argues that this amount is not received towards consideration and the amount is only towards ticket charges, no documentary proof has been placed by the appellants. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that these are not consideration/charges received for the services rendered is not acceptable. However, taking into consideration that the appellant has declare .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X