9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax liability and penalties if any. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority without passing any remarks on the merits of the case, with a direction to give the appellant reasonable opportunity for being heard and presenting documents in their support - appeal allowed by way of remand. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 30053 OF 2017 AND SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 30054 OF 2017 - A/30863-30864/2020 - Dated:- 21-1-2020 - HON BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON BLE P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) APPEARANCE: Shri P. Rosi Reddy, Advocate for the appellant. Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the respondent [ORDER PER: P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO) 1. These two appeals are filed against the same impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod, under section 78 for suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. It was further proposed to recover late fee under section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994 for not filing the returns. As far as Shri G. Ramana Murthy is concerned, it was proposed to impose a penalty upon him under section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994. Another show cause notice was issued on 15.04.2016 demanding service tax of ₹ 3,85,39,571/- under the head Business Auxiliary Services , ₹ 2,07,52,077/- under the category of Event Management Service , ₹ 50,690/- under the category of Legal Service and ₹ 54,428/- under the category of Security Service along with interest. Imposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der has confirmed the demands for the entire period as per the show cause notices. 6. Ld. Counsel further submit that now they are in a position to produce all documents necessary to prove that the services during the period post November 2011 were rendered to an overseas client and consideration for these services has been received in the form of convertible foreign exchange. 7. Ld. DR supports the impugned order. 8. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The appellant is not disputing the demand of service tax up to November 2011 as the services were rendered to a client based in Hyderabad and consideration for these services was received in Indian Rupees. They are only disputing the services re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
