9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the appellant herein, is engaged in providing the taxable service namely, consulting engineer and erection commissioning or installation services. On 29.03.2013, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 21,00,363/- as service tax voluntarily, considering the same as advance tax. During the course of audit for the disputed period, service tax liability of Rs. 11,54,072/- was identified a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority has confirmed demand of Service Tax of Rs. 11,54,072/- under the proviso to Section 73 (1) ibid alongwith interest and also imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Act. However, the proposal in the show cause notice with regard to appropriation of the amount of Rs. 11,54,072/- was dropped. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 26.09.2017 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts mentioned therein have no application to the case of the appellant. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. From the available records, I find that for the period April to August 2013, the appellant had deposited the Service Tax in advance on 29.03.2013. Thus, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
