9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G The present appeal is filed against the impugned order dt. 15/05/2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he has confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,83,590/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 along with applicable interest and also appropriated amount of Rs. 5,56,236/- and upheld the penalty under Section 77 and imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,83,590/- under Section 78 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aled that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 24,61,901/- and Rs. 27,90,405/- as commission during 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. The service tax amount inclusive of cess on this amount was worked out to Rs. 3,04,291/- and Rs. 3,44,894/- respectively totaling to Rs. 6,49,185/-. On these allegations, a show-cause notice dt. 06/10/2015 was issued for the period April 2013 to March 2015 along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and the law. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly quantified the service tax liability of Rs. 5,83,590/- whereas the actual liability as per the computation sheet attached, is Rs. 5,77,773/-. He further submitted that the appellant has paid the entire service tax liability much before the issue of show-cause notice which was issued after a lapse of 2 years 6 mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,49,185/- but the appellate authority has given the cum-tax benefit and confirmed the tax liability to Rs. 5,83,590/- which is also wrong in quantification and the actual liability comes to Rs. 5,77,773/- and the appellant has already paid Rs. 6,15,926/- as per the various challans attached and he has also paid the interest of Rs. 33,437/- volunt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
