TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een produced. In these circumstances there is no option but to confirm the said demand. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - The appellants have not disputed that the figure show in their ST-3 Return did not match with the figures shown in their balance sheet. In these circumstances invocation of extended period of limitation is justified. Simultaneous penalty u/s 76 and 78 - It has been argued that after 10.5.2008, when the act was amended, penalties under both these Section cannot be imposed simultaneously - Held that: - The appellant in their grounds of appeal, have not given any reason why the same finding needs to be disturbed. Consequently imposition of penalty under Section 76 & 78 is upheld. Penalty u/s 77 - Held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Clause 10 of the Agreement with Nagpur Municipal Corporation dt. 30.05.2008. It has been arrived at on the basis of one agreement and the Commissioner has failed to consider the accounting policy of the appellant. It has been argued that the Commissioner has wrongly reached the conclusion that the cum tax benefit cannot be extended. It has been argued that Commissioner has not considered that the appellant were crediting the entire amount received including service tax to their Profit and Loss Account. It has been argued that the appellants have deposited service tax amount of ₹ 4,59,665/- demanded show cause notice. The said service tax was deposited through TR6 challan which were attached to ST-3 returns. 3. It has also bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue and the service tax. Liability can only be arrived on the basis of the total receipt and not on the basis of total amount billed. The payments received by the appellant need to be considered as total of assessable value and service tax and thus the appellants are entitled to the benefit of cum duty value on the receipt basis. 5.1. It is further notice that the appellants have not paid service tax on the total taxable value declared by them in their ST-3 return and consequently a demand of ₹ 4,59,665/- has been confirmed. The appellant in their appeal memorandum have contended that they have already paid this amount vide TR 6 challan which they claimed to have attached to their ST 3 return. The appellant had claimed that they wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
