9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, there is no case to reduce the demand as prayed for by the appellant. Consequently, there is no case to reduce penalty proportionately. As far as the appropriation of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- admittedly deposited by the appellant during the investigation is concerned, it is seen that this amount should have been appropriated in the impugned order. Appeal allowed in part to the extent that an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- deposited by the appellant stands appropriated against the confirmed demand. The remaining part of the impugned order is upheld. - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None for the Appellant Shri Harsh Vardhan, Authorised Representative of the Respondent ORDER Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice (SCN) dated 24.09.2014 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 4,82,70,737/- for the services provided from July 2012 to September 2013 under section 73 of the Act along with interest under section 75. It was also proposed to appropriate an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- deposited by the appellant through the aforesaid two challans against this demand. It was further proposed to demand Rs. 2,15,539/- for the rent a cab service and manpower recruitment service received by the appellant from July 2012 to September 2013 under reverse charge mechanism along with interest. Penalties were also proposed to be imposed under sections 76 and 77 of the Act. 5. The appellant had not contested the demands on merits but ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s amount against the confirmed demand of service tax. 9. The second ground is that part of the SCN was issued beyond the normal period of limitation and hence was time barred and the Commissioner had, in the impugned order, not taken this into consideration. Referring to paragraph 17 of the impugned order it is submitted that the order records that the appellant had filed its ST-3 returns on April 15, 2013 for the period July 2012 to July 2013 which is evidently incorrect as the Return for the period upto July 2013 could not have been filed before the date on April 15, 2013 itself. It is submitted that an amount of Rs. 74,61,879/- should, therefore, be excluded from the demand being time barred and the demand on site formation and cleara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 Months from the relevant date 15.04.2013 (Actual date of filing return as per OIO) Normal Period 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 18 Months from the relevant date 25.07.2013 Normal Period 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2013 18 Months from the relevant date 25.01.2014 Normal Period 01.01.2014 to 30.06.2014 18 Months from the relevant date 25.07.2014 Normal Period 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014 18 Months from the relevant date 25.01.2015 Normal Period 12. He submits that there was, indeed, a typograp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
