TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has been correctly made from them. Therefore we uphold the service tax demand. However, the major demand amount already stands paid by them - the Appellant is entitled to pay reduced penalty of 25% imposed upon them under section 78 - if the remaining service tax demand and 25% penalty is paid by them within 30 days of the receipt of this order, they shall be liable only for 25% penalty im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fee and penalty. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Appellate Commissioner thereafter. Hence the present appeal by the Appellant. 2. Shri Mayur Shroff, ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submits that the demand has been made by relying upon partly on bank statements and partly from invoices raised instead of considering the balance sheet. The relian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n vis a vis P L Account for the year 2008 09 and 2011 12. Although the difference is not substantial, the appellant have not given any justification. That they had given justification but even if seen it involves service tax of only ₹ 5313/ -. The service tax demand works out to be ₹ 57,698/-is not sustainable. That the return filed by them were not held to be incorrect and hence dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that quantification of demand on the basis of Balance Sheet, bank statements and bills has led to duplication of demand was not supported by any contrary evidence. They did not produce any documentary evidence in their support and hence the demand has been correctly confirmed. 4. Heard both the side s and perused the records. We observed from the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) that though t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
