9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL) Shri S.K. Mathur, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri S.K. Mathur learned advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri Rajeev Ranjan learned A.R. on behalf of the Revenue, we note that the appellants were providing various services to Delhi Development Authority. Appellants w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant during the period from 07/01/2011 to 15/06/2011 alongwith interest. The total interest paid was around Rs. 12 lakhs. It was also stated in the said show cause notice that ST-3 returns for the period from April, 2010 to September, 2010 and October, 2010 to March, 2011 were filed on 20/01/2012 after initiation of enquiry. Through said show cause notice a demand of Rs. 1.85 crores of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be set aside in terms of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. 3. Learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 4. Having considered the submission from both the sides and on perusal of records, we note that under Sub-section (4) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 it is provided that the provisions under Sub-section (3) to said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax was paid after initiation of enquiry. Further the ruling of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs. Prasad Bidappa reported at 2011 (09)LCX0148 relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the present case because in the said case suppression was not alleged. Further relied upon another Final Order of this Tribunal reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
