9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority. Being the appellant a registered service provider and filing their Service Tax returns, in that circumstances, the demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from the Income Tax Department. Further, the adjudication order has been passed ex parte. Moreover, the show cause notice has been issued to the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation and some of the demand pertains to beyond five years and in this case, the demand has to be calculated in terms of Valuation Rules, 2006. The issue in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 or not? The extended period of limitation is not invocable. Moreover, on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The appellant contested the show cause notice, but the demand proposed in the show cause notice was confirmed against the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on the basis of Form-26AS figure, the demand cannot be raised against the appellant. 4. It is further submitted that the appellant received contractual payments on execution of Works Contract Services and the appellant has submitted the copies of work orders, payment particulars, copies of the invoices and Form-26AS. The work order shows that they he executed composite work. The payments were made to the appellant from the service recipient after deducting Works Contract Tax in lie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, therefore, extended period of limitation is not invocable. It is also submitted that some part of the demand is beyond five years. 7. He also submitted that the impugned order is an ex parte order. On that ground also, the impugned order is to be set aside. In view of these, it is his submission that the impugned order, is to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Ld.AR for the Department reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the appellant did not co-operate during the investigation, therefore, the demand has been rightly calculated on the basis of Form-26AS. 9. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. 10. In this case, the appellant has contended that the demand has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
