9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-in-Original as to why this amount has not been considered while passing the Order. It is deemed fit to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant is required to submit the complete details of invoice-wise statement for the period under dispute along with copies of the invoices to substantiate their claims towards requantification. The amounts paid by them under various challans should be submitted to the Adjudicating Authority. These figures should certified by Chartered Accountant clearly indicating the total turnover as per Profit Loss Account and turnover shown in ST-3 returns, amount collected by them on account of Service Tax etc. Even the matter of GAR Challan dated 15.10.2008 for Rs. 27,11,144/- claimed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Rs. 25,59,783/- along with interest of Rs.6,00,148/-. The Department issued Show Cause Notice on 28.10.2009 for the period 2004- 05 to 2008-09 by invoking the extended period provisions wherein going by the details provided by them in their Profit Loss Account visa-a-vis ST-3 Returns, the demand was quantified to Rs. 1,23,90,009/-. After taking into account that the Appellant has paid Rs. 41,19,392/-. The balance payment was quantified of Rs. 1,32,70,617/-. The Appellant submitted before the Adjudicating Authority that the job work was undertaken on behalf of manufacturers who were paying Excise Duty for the finished goods manufactured by them. If such finished goods manufactured by them were subsequently used in the manufacture of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly based on the preliminary assessment of the audit and the Appellant cannot take the stand that the finally quantified amount of Rs. 1,32,70,617/- is not correct, just because of the fact that audit has initially quantified the sum of Rs. 25,15,783/-. The Department has clearly established that the turnover shown in the Profit Loss Account and in the ST-3 returns were different and accordingly the demand was correctly quantified at Rs. 1,32,17,617/- after taking the amount of Rs. 41,19,392/- paid by the Appellant in the normal course. He reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and prays the appeal may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is seen from the impugned Order-in-Original that the Adjudicating Authority h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessees should have proved the same, which they have failed to do. They should have submitted the list of partywise ledger account with copies thereof, duly certified by the Chartered Accountant to substantiate their claim that they have actually collected the amount claimed by them i.e. Rs.54,36,628/- instead of Rs. 1,32,70,617/- (after allowing for the amount deposited) as alleged in the notice.[emphasis supplied] 6. From the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, it is seen that the Appellant has not brought in proper documentary evidence towards their claim that the quantified amount of Rs. 1,32,17,617/- is not correct. Further, when the Appellant claims that they have paid Rs. 27,91,144/- on 15.10.2008, there is no finding in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
