9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed for the material period – appellant contented that entire demand is based on incorrect figures furnished by the staff of the appellants in the ST-3 returns; where the taxable value was required to be furnished, erroneously, the amount inclusive of service tax had been furnished. This error had arisen on account of the introduction of a revised format of ST-3 return under Notification No. 31/2005-ST dated 20.10.2005 – Matter remanded. - ST/S/56/2009 & ST/EH/42/2009 & ST/82/2009 - 657 OF 2009 - Dated:- 4-6-2009 - Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President and Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate, for the Appellants Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Respondent [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had not paid tax due on the entire taxable value recorded in the ST-3 returns filed for the material period. In the appeal and during hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire demand is based on incorrect figures furnished by the staff of the appellants in the ST-3 returns; where the taxable value was required to be furnished, erroneously, the amount inclusive of service tax had been furnished. This error had arisen on account of the introduction of a revised format of ST-3 return under Notification No. 31/2005-ST dated 20.10.2005. The field for furnishing the information 'value of taxable service charged or billed' was replaced in the new format with 'amount received towards taxable service(s) pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants made a fervent prayer for remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority when the appellants would satisfactorily reconcile the errors and convince the authorities that there was no short-payment of tax at all. 4. The appellants had furnished details of tax paid on the disputed services and their service tax liability under an enclosure to their reply to the Show Cause Notice on 29.5.2007. They paid an amount of Rs.24,99,432/- which was not actually necessarily. They have since filed a claim for refund of the same. The Commissioner found discrepancies between the particulars furnished by the appellants on 18.10.2006 and on 25.5.2007 which had arisen on account of the difficulties faced by the appellants in furnishing the cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
