9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 - Dated:- 2-4-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri K.K. Banerjee, Advocate for the for the Appellant (s) Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 2. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has allowed the Revenue s appeal and confirmed the demand of service tax of ₹ 6,53,320/- along with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned order are reproduced for better understanding of the case. 6.1. I have carefully gone through the case records, I find from the Annexure-A to impugned show cause notice dated that at the bottom o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d decision by the Hon ble Apex Court makes it clear that under no circumstances, no decision should go beyond the scope of notice. Similar approach was obtained again Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. [2008 (232) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.)]. 6.2. I further find from the Annexure-A submitted by the appellant written as Summary which is a part of the findings of the OIO dated 28.06.2016, where in it was stated by the appellant that ₹ 22,360/- is the differential tax due on the part of the appellant and ₹ 92,501/- is the tax paid through Transporter. However, I find that there is no findings in his order where adjudicating authority has stated that party has provided copies of documents wherefrom it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the demand of ₹ 6,53,320/- as raised in the show cause notice had already been paid by the appellants in pursuance to the queries made by the audit during August, 2014. Ld. Advocate vehemently argued that the amount demanded is without considering the exemption available to the consignments below ₹ 750/- each and the amount of tax paid by the transporter has also not been considered while raising the demand. All the documents were duly produced before the Adjudicating Authority on 02.02.2016. Copies of the said documents are also annexed in the appeal paper book. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I find that all the supporting documents were filed before the Adjudicating Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
