9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the appellant and Shri Devender Singh, ld.JCDR for the department. 2. The appellant have come in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.185(RDN)ST/JPR-I/2012 dt.6.9.2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Jaipur. It was argued by the Revenue that the appellant was not paying service tax properly and enquiry was initiated against them. During enquiry records were examined. On scrutiny of record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t remaining amount of service tax may be adjusted against excess payment. During stay proceedings, learned Counsel Ms. Renu Gupta intimated that service tax of Rs. 39,030/- alongwith interest of Rs. 3,862/- has already been deposited. Their only contest was regarding imposition of penalty under section 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that there was no suppression involved a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of Finance Act, 1994 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) were justified. 5. Heard both sides and also gone through the submission made by learned JCDR as well as written submission filed by the appellant. 6. Simple issue involved in the appeal is whether there was suppression in declaring the receipt of taxable service tax and consequent short payment of service tax and consequently imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
