9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also utilizing such credit towards payment of duty on their final product. They have obtained the service tax registration for the purpose. During the course of audit of the appellants record, Department noticed that appellant has been making payment on 75% instead of 100% on total value/ expenses towards payment made to the labour contractor under Manpower, Recruitment And Supply Service. Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012 since was amended vide Notification No. 7/2015 dated 01.03.2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. It was alleged that the 100% payment of the liability was that of the recipient. Resultantly, Show Cause Notice No. 1744 dated 31.03.2017 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of short payment of an amount of Rs. 4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M the appellant has submitted that there is no occasion for the Department to confirm the said demand alleging the payment still to be a short levy. Above all, the question of imposition of penalty does not arises. Finally, alleging the Show Cause Notice to be barred by time, Order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 3. While rebutting these arguments, Ms. Tamanna Alam, Ld. DR for the Department has impressed upon para 4.10 of the original order and has justified that since the payment of service tax w.e.f. 01.04.2015 is of the service recipient to the extent of 100% of the total value, the authorities below have rightly confirmed the demand. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 4. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en impressing upon the challans for the month of April 2015 to December 2015, about payment of 25% of the value of service received by the service provider during said period itself but the authorities below have been silent about the said evidences. From the paragraph of the impugned order as impressed upon by the Ld DR it is apparent acknowledgement of the adjudicating authorities below about the payment of entire liability (75% by appellant and 25% by his service provider) even for the period in dispute but still the authorities have not bothered to reflect their opinion about the evidences in the form of challans as mentioned above as were produced by the appellant. The authorities in the sheer ignorance of that evidence have gone to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
