9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of providing taxable services, defined under the Finance Act, 1994. During the disputed period, the appellant had imported certain services from over-seas entities and was liable to pay service tax under 'reverse charge mechanism', as recipient of such services. However, the appellant did not pay the service tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order dated 12.03.2018 has upheld the adjudged demand confirmed against the appellant. Thus, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submits that the appellant is not contesting the service tax demand along with interest confirmed in the adjudication order. However, he submits that the benefit of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and was liable to pay service tax under Section 66A of the Act, as recipient of service, under reverse charge mechanism. Since the appellant did not pay the service tax attributable to receipt of taxable service, the CERA audit officers have rightly pointed out such mistakes. Being a Service Tax registered assessee, the appellant was required to comply with the statutory provisions, including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
