2023 (6) TMI 149 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of service tax alongwith interest and penalty - transaction in purchase and sale of commodity (Trading) - apparent difference in the turnover shown in the balance sheet as well as in the ER-1 returns - failure to produce documentary evidence to establish that the disputed income (escaped turnover) is related to commodity trading - HELD THAT:- Appellant have lead sufficient evidence and explained the apparent difference. Both the Court below have not found anything erroneous or misgiving in the cogent explanation given by the appellant corroborated by books of accounts and vouchers. Undisputedly, appellant has profit from trading in commodities Rs. 8,52,60,853/- during the period. Further, the contentions are also supported by the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. It is further found that there is a categorical finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the appellant to the effect that the appellant have properly explained the apparent difference supported by books of accounts- commodity trading account, ledger etc. Thus, in spite of finding that the apparent difference is properly reconciled, still the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the appeal by some irrelevant observations without there being any finding of fact against the pleadings of the appellant.

Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.