9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- and Cenvat Credit demand of Rs. 4,66,918/- along with interest and imposed penalties on them under Section 76 on the grounds that :- (a) for the month of October, 2003 whereas the tax payment through the Department of Telecommunication was Rs. 40,15,010/-, the service tax payable worked out to Rs. 43,40,626/- and as such, there is short payment of Rs. 3,25,625/-; (b) for December, 2003 against service tax liability of Rs. 22,58,992/-, the payment of service tax through department of Telecommunication was Rs. 18,75,318/- and as such, there was short payment of Rs. 39,07,354/-; (c) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al No.ST/817/2008 has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Sh. Alok Mahajan, Advocate, the leaned counsel for the appellant, pleaded that service tax demand of Rs. 18,52,586/- conformed by the order-in-original dt. 27.08.2008 passed by the Commissioner is on the basis that in the ST-3 Return for the period from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004, while the service tax payable, on the basis of the amount of Rs. 16,21,17,485/- realized works out to Rs. 1,39,16,720/- the appellant have paid service tax of only Rs. 1,20,64,134/-, that this demand is totally incorrect as amount of Rs. 16,21,17,485/- realized by the appellant from period 01.01.2004 to 30.09.2004 also includes inter interconnect usage charges (IUC) on which no service tax was payable, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner by which the service tax demand of Rs. 7,63,100/- and Cenvat Credit demand of Rs. 4,66,918/- has been confirmed along with interest, the same is incorrect and has been passed without considering the Appellants submissions, that service tax demand of Rs. 7,63,100/- confirmed by the Commissioner pertains to Oct.03, Dec.03 and Feb.04 and the same has been confirmed on the ground that the service tax paid during these months is less than the service tax payable on the basis of the amounts realized, that this difference is for the reason that the amounts realized mentioned in the ST-3 returns also include interconnect usage charges (IUC) on which no service tax is chargeable, that this plea had been made before the Commissioner but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- and Rs. 18,52,856/- have to be set aside and remanded to the Commissioner for de-novo adjudication after considering the appellant's plea that the amounts realized as mentioned in the respective ST-3 return also included amounts realized for providing interconnection which was not taxable and if this plea of the appellant is correct, these demands would not be sustainable. 6. As regards the demand of Education Cess amounting to Rs. 94,210/- confirmed vide order-in-original dt. 28.08.08, the contention of the appellant is that this Education Cess demand pertains to period prior to 10.09.04 i.e. in respect of the bills raised for the period prior to 10.09.04, while Education Cess has become payable w.e.f. 10.09.04 and hence in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
