9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case no evidence has been produced by the revenue to hold that the amount collected by the appellant is exclusive of service tax or it has been separately collected by the appellant. In view of the above, there are no merit in the department s stand that benefit of Section 67(2) could not be extended. The appellant discharged the entire service tax along with interest soon after the same was pointed out and in this circumstances the benefit of Section 73(3) should not have been denied. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the penalty imposed on the appellant are set aside. - Service Tax Appeal No.10276 of 2013 - Final Order No. A/10027/2023 - Dated:- 10-1-2023 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TEC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011. 2.1 He argued that they are not challenging the liability of service tax. He argued that the benefit of Section 73(3) has been denied and a show cause notice was issued to them. Although, they had paid the entire tax liability along with interest before issuance of show cause notice and communicated their acceptance of the liability vide letter dated 25.04.2011. He argued that in view of the above fact that they had accepted the liability, benefit of Section 73(3) should have been allowed. 2.2 He pointed out that the benefit of Section 73(3) has been denied mainly on the ground that the appellant had discharged the service tax liability on cum tax basis in terms of Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged. He pointed out that since they had discharged the service tax liability after availing the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 their claim to the application of Section 73(3) could not have been discarded by the original adjudicating authority. 4.1 We find that Section 67(2) clearly provided for treating the amount charged by the service provider as inclusive of service tax payable unless it is specifically mentioned in the documents. In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the revenue to hold that the amount collected by the appellant is exclusive of service tax or it has been separately collected by the appellant. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
