9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not paid service tax of Rs.24,020/-on the amount of Rs.4,80,400/- received by them for providing courier service proceedings were initiated against the appellant and M/s. Professional Couriers for recovery of the service tax with interest and there was a proposal for penalty also. Before the original adjudicating authority, both the parties appeared and M/s. Professional Courier Services made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have paid the service tax or is liable to pay service tax. Appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected. 2. Heard both the sides. Ld. chartered accountant on behalf of the appellants today submits a certificate issued by Regional Manager, Daman region of M/s. Professional Couriers on 2.11.2010 certifying that M/s. Preeti Courier was working as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. chartered accountant that M/s. Professional Couriers had orally promised them that they would fulfil the liability of service tax if they opt for amnesty scheme and after they had opted for dispute resolution scheme, M/s. Professional Couriers did not pay the amount. He fairly admitted that there is no evidence to show this. Because of the demand, they approached M/s. Professional Couriers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 2000-2001. The party have claimed to receive an amount of Rs.4,80,400/- from the said assessee and shown the same as service tax paid. Thereby the party did not pay the service tax Rs.24,020/- by not disclosing these facts to the department and wrongly and intentionally claimed the exemption from payment of service tax on the equivalent amount for which they were not entitled for exemption. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
