9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent made verification with M/s. Achariya Educational Public Trust; that it has been clarified by the said institution that appellants have provided services of security force and not manpower supply. There is no indication as to whether copy of the said report was provided to the appellant to offer their response and or rebuttal of the same. This being so, it is found that the basic principles of natural justice have been given the go by. Interests of Justice will require that the appellant is given a copy of the said verification report and also given sufficient opportunity to offer their comments / rebuttals on the same within a reasonable time - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/560/2010 - FINAL ORDER No. 42302/2018 - Dated:- 5- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on which service tax liability has been discharged by them. However, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 30.06.2008 confirmed the demand of tax proposed in the SCN and also, imposed equal penalty under Section 78 ibid and also penalty under Section 76 ibid. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 21.05.2010 upheld the order of the original authority. Hence the appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Ms. S. Sridevi makes submissions which can be broadly summarized as under:- i) The show cause notice has not indicated under which service the demand has been made, hence the demand is unsustainable. ii) The difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferential contract amount is the amount charged and received for security agency service rendered/provided by the appellants. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 We find that the show cause notice in para-3 thereof has alleged that income declared by the assessee in their Income and Expenditure Account Statements for the years 2002-03 to 2005-05, represents the contract amount received by them during respective years, which is nothing but gross amount charged and received for the security service rendered / provided by them. Based on this, in para -5, the differential value for the impugned period has been worked as ₹ 66,02,399/- and the service tax short-paid alleged as ₹ 5,74,477/-. This is the very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
