9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant had incorrectly computed the service tax liability and had also paid the differential amount of such liability along with interest before issuance of the show cause notice - the payment particulars were duly reflected by the appellant in the periodic ST-3 returns filed before the department, which is evident from the observations made at paragraph 6 in the impugned order. Further, the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mane, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Export Oriented Unit (EOU), engaged in manufacture of excisable goods namely Bulk Drugs formulations, falling under Chapters 29 and 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is also registered under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 03.05.2017, wherein the proposals made in the show cause notice were confirmed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 10.04.2018 has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed on the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for non-imposition of penalties. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for Revenue has reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant had incorrectly computed the service tax liability and had also paid the differential amount of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
