9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal challenging the following demand and also penalties imposed: I. Service tax of Rs. 1,14,509/- on loading and unloading charges is claimed by the appellant II. Service tax of Rs. 51,126/- on house rent charges reimbursed by its client. III. Service tax of Rs. 73,053/- due to incorrect working of service tax. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant however, through e-mail dated 13th March, 2023, the Learned Chartered Accountant on record requested to decide the appeal on merit. 3. We have heard Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue who reiterated the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by Learned AR and the grounds o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, this demand is also not sustainable. 4.3 As regard the penalties imposed, it is the submission of the appellant that since the major amount was already paid and remaining amount was on debatable issue, the penalties are not sustainable invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4.4 We find that the major demand was admittedly paid by the appellant only a small amount was disputed in the present appeal. As regard the service tax demand of Rs. 1, 14,509/-, the appellant's claim is that it is on account of loading and unloading charges. As per the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), We find that by referring the work order it was contended that the appellant were to supply labour required for the shifting, loading and unloading of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. 4.6 As regard the demand of Rs. 73,053/- it was claimed by the appellant that this amount is in excess due to calculation error. The appellant have referred the letter dated 07.06.2011, though the appellant have given the reconciliation in the said letter. However, both the lower authorities have rejected the same on the ground that no documents were produced in support of their claim of incorrect calculation of service tax liability. We find that in appeal also the appellant have not submitted any documents therefore, demand of service tax of amount of Rs. 73,053/- is also sustainable. 4.7 As regard the penalty imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 , We find that the appellant have recorded the entire transaction in the books of accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
