9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. Per. S.K. Mohanty :- In this case, the learned Additional Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 25/01/2012 has confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 15,37,812/- alongwith interest and imposed penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said service tax demand was confirmed on the ground that the appellant had prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which has been accepted and acknowledged by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the record. We find that the appellant is not contesting the service tax liability confirmed by the authorities below on merits. The on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has never alleged that the bills/invoices raised by the appellant were showing the amount of service tax. Under these circumstances when the appellant was neither charging service tax nor was collecting it from the respective customers, there cannot be any charge of intention to evade service tax". 5. From the above findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is clear that the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
