9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancial statement produced on record. Further, as per the reconciliation statement which is in annexure I produced, showing wrong computation of the service tax @ 14.05% whereas the effective rate of service tax during the said Finance year was 12.36% for the months of April, 2015 and May, 2015, 14% for the period of June, 2015 till November, 2015 and 14.5% till March. But, the Original authority has calculated the service tax @ 14.5% which is wrong. It is found that both the authorities have not examined the nature of service whether the same falls under works contract service or not In view of these discrepancies in the impugned order, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Original authority with the direction to examine various issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urns was less than what was shown in the Income tax returns and there by the appellant has not paid Service Tax. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority vide the Order-in-Original dated 26.09.2022 confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 1,71,475/- along with interest under Section 73 and Section 75 of the Act. Penalties of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.1,71,475/- were also imposed under Section 77(2) and Section 78 respectively of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both parties and perused the material on record. 4.. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arging its service tax liability. The appellant has appended a calculation in this regard which was not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Ld. Consultant also submits that the entire proceedings against the appellant was time barred; the applicable limitation period was 18 months and the appellant has been filing regularly returns as per the relevant provisions and service tax liability was duly discharged by the appellant without any intention to evade payment tax. He further submits that the extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of fraud/collusion willful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made threunder with intent to evade payment of duty. The Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Original authority has wrongly computed the amounts of service tax by taking the figures of Rs. 49,64,538/- as the value of services but the Original authority has not considered the payment of service tax of Rs. 5,41,582/- which is shown as an expense in the financial statement produced on record. Further, I find that as per the reconciliation statement which is in annexure I produced before me showing wrong computation of the service tax @ 14.05% whereas the effective rate of service tax during the said Finance year was 12.36% for the months of April, 2015 and May, 2015, 14% for the period of June, 2015 till November, 2015 and 14.5% till March. But, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
