9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x - no suppression of facts or evasion of tax - HELD THAT:- There is only venial breach of the provision of Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, and there is no mis-statement/suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Further, it is found that they have deposited service tax regularly and filed returns in the ordinary course of business. The differential tax have arisen due to lack of underst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposits from the other prospective buyers. The appellant had paid service tax on receipt of the advance from the first prospective buyer. Thereafter pursuant to cancellation and on receipt of the new booking from the next buyer, when they received the deposit, they adjusted the said deposit from the taxable amount earlier subjected to tax on receipt basis. Further, appellant had shown such adjuste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to reject the appeal. 2. The learned Counsel urges that it is evident from facts on record that they have get proper records of their transaction and have made the adjustment of tax i.e. permissible under Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The only error committed by them is that instead of adjusting the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue relied on the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and from the facts on record, I hold that there is only venial breach of the provision of Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, and there is no mis-statement/suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Further, I find that they have deposited service tax regularly and filed returns in the ordinary course of business. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
