9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri A. Roy, Authorized Representative for the Respondent (s) ORDER S.K. MOHANTY : Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as the recipient of taxable service, the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax under Reverse Charge mechanism. During the course of audit for the relevant period, the department had observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the original authority. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the appellant is not contesting the adjudged Service Tax and interest demand confirmed against it. However, he submits that since based on the records maintained by the appellant, the department had observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. It is an admitted fact on record that based on the books of accounts maintained by the appellant, the audit wing of the Service Tax department had observed the discrepancy of non-payment/short payment of Service Tax by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, which has been invoked for the first time by the adjudicating authority, during the course of adjudication of the matter. It is evident that the adjudication order in this case, has gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice and on that count, imposition of late fee on the appellant cannot be sustained. 6. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order, to the extent it impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
