9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to requantify the service tax for the disputed period on the basis of details and documents furnished by the appellant. The issue of receipt basis upto 2011 has to be taken note of. The adjudicating authority shall also consider that, if the appellant has paid the entire amount for the disputed period and then there would not be any further liability. In the present case, since the demand raised is only on incorrect calculation of service tax in the SCN, it shows that the appellant has not suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. For this reason, the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 requires to be set aside. The impugned order is modified to the exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Consultant Shri N.K. Bharathkumar appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is contesting the issue of quantification of service tax in the SCN and the impugned order. The appellant had put forward this contention before the original authority furnishing all documents with regard to the service tax paid by them. However, the original authority has erroneously quantified the entire service tax demand raised in the SCN. 2.1 Ld. Consultant adverted to para--13 of the impugned order in which Table I is given as under : TABLE I YEAR AMOUNT DEMANDED IN THE SCN in Rs. LIABILITY ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE in Rs. ALLEGED EXCESS DEMAND in Rs. 2008 09 23,31,054/-- 23, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant has discharged service tax after calculating the service tax on accrual basis. The entire demand has been made only on the basis of erroneous quantification. The appellant has honestly discharged service tax liability as and when they have filed returns. Ld. Consultant prayed that if the matter is remanded, the appellant would be able to establish that they have discharged service tax liability for the disputed period. It is asserted that the appellant is not contesting any other issue except for the issue of quantification of the tax. Ld. Consultant prayed for orders accordingly. 3. Ld. A.R Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared for the Department. The findings in the impugned order was reiterated. 4. Heard both sides. 5. From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
