9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant has to furnish documentary evidence to show that they have paid the service tax to the MSO. For this purpose, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority who shall look into the plea of adjustment of CENVAT credit for the amount that has to be paid by the appellant. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of granting the benefit of CENVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the period August 2002 to September 2005. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 3,04,484/- along with interest and also imposed penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri R. Balagopal, consultant appeared and argued the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... She submitted that the appellant had not furnished any evidence to show the amount collected by them as well as payment of service tax. The quantification of demand and the penalties imposed are legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The appellant has submitted that they are not contesting the demand of service tax or the interest thereof. The only prayer is to give them the adjustment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are eligible for CENVAT credit and the same would be eligible for adjustment towards the demand. The appellant has paid up substantial amounts. For these reasons, we hold that the penalties imposed are unwarranted and requires to be set aside which we hereby. 7. From the above discussions, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of granting the benefit of CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
