9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,53,207/- towards the Service Tax and interest for delay in payment of Service Tax for the periods 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the penalty equal to the Service Tax confirmed, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed under Section 77(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been providing services to M/s. Durgapur Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to as 'DSP'), but they were not paying proper Service Tax. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated, demanding Service Tax totally amount to Rs.6,05,795/- from the appellant for the periods 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09. 2.1 On adjudication, the ld. adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of Rs. 80,220/- and Rs. 25,576/- as arrear service tax for the FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08 respectively. But no document evidencing such payment was produced. Again, since there was no demand for the period 2007-08 the arrear service tax paid in respect of the said FY is not taken into consideration for calculating the total liability of payment of service tax by the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is now required to pay an amount of Rs. 2,53,207/- towards service tax and interest for delay in payment of service tax for the periods 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 respectively. The order of the lower authority is modified accordingly." 5. From the submissions made by the appellant, we find that the appellant has paid the Service Tax fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Service Tax for the Financial Year 2008-09 has not been taken into account while reconciling the net Service Tax payable by the appellant. Accordingly, it is required to remand the matter back to the ld. adjudicating authority to verify the above claim of the appellant and arrive at the actual Service Tax payable by the appellant, if any, for the periods 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09. 6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter 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. 7. In view of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
