9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith regard to the non-payment of service tax or the short levy of the same or short payment of the same having erroneously refunded. Since the controversy rests solely on the adjudicating authority’s observation vis-à-vis the appellant’s claim of having paid service tax with interest before SCN, the matter requires re-verification - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/41116/2017 - FINAL ORDER No. 41899/2018 - Dated:- 29-6-2018 - Hon ble Shri. P.Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri R.Ravikumar, Advocate For the Appellant Shri R.Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing maintenance and repair services and construction of commercial and industrial cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord. The same was rejected by the Assistant commissioner vide the Order dated 19.11.2015 intimating that the assessee has to file appeal since the OIO No.3/2015 dated 30.01.2015 was accepted by the Commissioner of Service Tax. The appellant filed one more rectification application dated 27.11.2015 which also came to be rejected vide the order dated 04.02.2016 on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on record in the OIO which did not require any rectification. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I), Chennai and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the Order dated 23.03.2017 in OIA No. 81/2017 (STA-I) rejected the appeal holding that the appellant should have filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not imposable where charge of suppression is not proved. In the case on hand, there is no allegation of short payment of tax nor is it the department s case that the tax was paid belatedly and that nothing was discovered during the course of audit with regard to the non-payment of service tax or the short levy of the same or short payment of the same having erroneously refunded. 9. I find force in the appellant s contention since the controversy rests solely on the adjudicating authority s observation vis- -vis the appellant s claim of having paid service tax with interest before SCN. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires re-verification especially in the light of the above fact as to the pleadings that the appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
