9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nyan, A.R. for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] This appeal is directed against order-in-original No.45/2008 dated 30/09/2008. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is required to discharge an amount of approximately Rs. 36.33 lakhs as service tax or otherwise. 4. From the records it tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is contesting the demand of Rs. 36,33,920/- on the ground that the said amount has been paid by them to M/s RTCL. He would submit that M/s RTCL has deposited this amount along with interest to the Govt of India which has been accepted by the Revenue by Adjudication Order No.21/2007(MRR) dated 31.10.2007 and has been confirmed by the Commissioner as a revisional authority by an order-in-revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs. 6. Learned A.R. reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 7. On a careful consideration and perusal of records, we do find merits in the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is a fact that the appellant herein is only contesting the confirmation of the demand of Rs. 36,33,920/- (including education cess of Rs. 1,01,193/-) only as they have discharged the balance portion of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities and it did state that M/s RTCL had received an amount of Rs. 32,87,010/- from the appellant and did not deposit the same with the Govt of India and also other amount of service tax from various other service recipients. If that be so, and remains undisputed, CEBC Circular dated 17.12.2004 in paragraph No 5.7 clearly covers the case of the appellant herein. The said paragraph reads as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
