9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Ms. Lakshmi Menon , Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anoop Singh , Authorised Representative ORDER Order: - Service Tax Appeal No. ST/42577/2014 has been filed by M/s. Hameed Co. (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd., Malappuram, Kerala, assailing the Order-in-Appeal No. 177/2014-ST dated 02.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Salem. 2.1 Brief facts in the appeal are that the appellant is engaged in providing Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service to M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., Salem. The allegation against the appellant was that they had not discharged the Service Tax payable amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce recipient that Cheque No. 862410 was not encashed by the appellant, had dropped the demand. However, the Department has reviewed this order by filing an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to verify as to whether the demanded amount relates to the period ending 31.10.2010 and whether ledger entries were made relating to the issuance of Cheque or whether the same was encashed. No verification was conducted with M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. or with the Bank Branch of service receiver as to encashment of the Cheque No. 150315 dated 26.11.2010. 2.4 By impugned order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment for the service has not been received, the question of payment of service tax would not arise during the period in question, i.e., from March 2010 to April 2011. 3.3 The Ld. Counsel further submitted that it was not disputed, that the Cheque No. 150315 dated 26.11.2010 was not encashed by them. In the remand proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority vide his order dated 14.03.2014 dropped the demand on the ground that the amount in question was not received by the appellants after arriving at this conclusion by placing reliance on the information provided by M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., Salem. The Ld. Advocate prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative Mr. Anoop Singh, Joint Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em. The above amount was receivable from the service recipient and the Cheque No. 150315 dated 26.11.2010 was not at all encashed by them and the appellant is also submitted that at the relevant time, the Service Tax is payable only on the consideration received in terms of Rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 7.3 Based on the correspondence entered with M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. it has been ascertained vide JSWSL/S/CEX/009/2013-14/128 dated 05.12.2013 that the above Cheque for Rs.14,10,405/- has not been encashed by the appellant. However, M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. have not provided the extract of ledger showing reverse entry / contra entry towards the Cheque not encashed. The appellant has all along contended that they have not received an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
