2018 (12) TMI 1111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... revised from 8% to 10.2% - Held that:- The issue involved is interpretation of law that whether the service tax rate is applicable on the date of receipt of advance or on the date of providing the services - the issue being of interpretation of law, longer period of demand cannot be invoked, hence the demand for the extended period was set aside. The demand for extended period and correspondi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the middle of the course session the service tax rate was revised from 8% to 10.2%. Accordingly, the differential tax demand @ 2.2% on pro rata basis was demanded for the period after the increase of rate of service tax. Accordingly, the demand was confirmed and penalties under Section 76, 77 78 were imposed. 2. Sh. S.J. Vyas Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ₹ 927/- he is not contesting the same. 3. Sh. S.N. Gohil. Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of submission made by both the sides and perusal of the records, we find that since the Ld. Counsel concede that he is not contesting the demand of ₹ 927/-, the same is upheld. As regard th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X