TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llegations. Therefore, they cannot allege suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax - the adjudicating authority is directed to recalculate the demand giving the benefit of CENVAT credit if any. The contention of the ld. AR that the appellant had not furnished details as required by the department does not hold water for the reason that the letter requesting for details h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges collected from the clients for which show cause notice dated 29.7.2009 for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.5.2007 was issued proposing to demand service tax, interest and for imposing penalties. After adjudication, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and also imposed penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, giving an option of reduced penalty under the provisions of law. Aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with rent and during the relevant period, the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property was under dispute. The appeal filed by the appellant against the adjudication order for the earlier period was pending before the Tribunal. That since the appellant was still litigating the issue, it cannot be said that appellants have suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f net tax liability after giving the benefit of CENVAT credit to the appellants. Further, the appellant is a State Government Corporation primarily set up for promoting IT and IT enabled services. This being so, nefarious intention to evade payment of service tax cannot be expected from them. In the present case, the department had issued an earlier show cause notice on the very same set of facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
