9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crepancies were noticed:- (i) There was a difference of Rs. 7,89,556/- in the service tax paid for the month of March, 2009 while comparing with the documents such as, premium register and big statement submitted by the appellant along with the ST-3 returns; (ii) The total taxable value as per the documents submitted to the Cost Accountant for the month of March, 2011 was more than the taxable value declared in the ST-3 statement which resulted in a difference in taxable value of Rs. 8,41,835/- for which the service tax payable worked out to Rs. 86,709/-; and (iii) On comparison of the statement submitted by the appellant with their ledgers, it was seen that they had availed excess credit of Rs. 1,82,343/- on reinsurance ceded during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions for such variations in the figures nor have they given any justification for the short-payments made by them on various counts. The appellant claims that they had paid the entire short-paid service tax and interest even before the issuance of show-cause notice. However, such payment was made by them only after being pointed out by the departmental audit officers and had it not been detected by the department, the same would have gone unnoticed. There can be no justification for a company of the appellant's stature to evade payment of legitimate taxes and duties which was clearly the case here. From the above, it is clear that the provisions of section 73(3) would be applicable only to cases not involving elements like fraud, coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of show-cause notice. However, in the instant case, the appellant had paid only the tax and interest before the issuance of notice and they had not paid the penalty as specified under section 73(4A) of the Act. Therefore, the applicability of section73(4A) is ruled out in this case." 4. After hearing both sides, I find that appellants are not disputing the confirmation of differential demand of service tax, which has essentially arisen on account of discrepancies in the figures in the value of the services as shown in their audit records and as reflected in their returns. No explanation is being forwarded by the appellants to justify such differentiation. They have also not contested the demand and have deposited the differential duty alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
