TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record to enable us to decide the veracity of this claim of Revenue. However, we observe that the confirmed demand reflects the tax computed for 2005-06 which is not consistent with the findings in the impugned order. It is therefore necessary that the value of taxable services would need to be determined afresh - matter is remanded back to the original authority for the limited purpose of compu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed penalties under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of the amount pertaining to 2006-07. It is the contention of Revenue that the computation of the amount due for 2006-07 is incorrect arising from improper appreciation of the facts in the show cause notice. It is also contended that the failure to remit tax pertaining to June 2006 should have been penalised under section 78 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is shown to be ₹ 3,84,76,000. It is seen from the annexure that the tax rate for 2006-07 is 12% whereas it is 10% for the preceding years. Revenue is aggrieved by the short recovery of ₹ 7,84,910 which is a consequence of adoption of the computation of tax for the year 2005-06 in the impugned order. It is their contention that the rate of 12% should have been applied to value recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
