9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant, if any, for the periods 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09. Matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of reconciling the actual payment made by the appellant and to arrive at the liability, if any, for the periods 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09 - appeal disposed off by way of remand. - HON BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) None for the Appellant Shri B. K. Singh , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Order : [ Per Shri K. Anpazhakan ] The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.133/Bol/2011 dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-IV), Kolkata wherein the Ld. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, has arrived at the net Service Tax payable for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09 as Rs.2,53,207/-, as under: - 8. For the FY 2006-07 and FY 2008-09 the appellant is in agreement with the demand amount. It is seen that during FY 2006-07 the appellant has paid service tax of Rs. 3,14,662/- as against payable amount of Rs. 3,25,805/- and during the FY 2008-09 the appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 2,37,798/- as against payable amount of Rs. 3,21,285/-. From the foregoing discussions it is thus evident that the appellant is now liable to pay service tax for an amount of Rs. 2,53,207/- along with interest for the period under dispute. Out of this amount the assesse has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record. 3. . The Ld. Commissioner(Appeal) rightly held that service tax payable by the appellant for the FY 2008-09 is Rs.321285/-. The Appellant had already paid Rs, 350861/- as service tax Ed. Cess in the FY 2008-09 which is Rs.29576/- more than the amount held as payable. 4. . the Ld. Commissioner(Appeal) erred in upholding that the appellant is required to pay differential service tax for the FY 2008-09. 5. . the differential amount of service tax aggregating Rs. 253207/- held by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeal) as payable for the period 2005-06, 2006-07 2008-09 is not correct inasmuch as no differential amount of service tax for the FY 2008-09 is payable by the appellant. 5.1 From the above, it is evident that the appellant s claim of pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
