TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating Authority with interest. Penalty - Held that:- We are inclined to waive the same by taking recourse to Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which was part of the Finance Act during the relevant time. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. ST/107/2008 - FO/76694/2018 - Dated:- 4-10-2018 - SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And SHRI S. K. PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. S. P. Majumdar, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri D. Haldar, A. C. (A. R.) for the Revenue ORDER PER SHRI V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. ST/Shilong No.3/08 dt. 27/03/2008. The appellant is a provider of telecommunication services to the customers in Assam, District, Bongaigaon. The acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Service Tax for the period when it was under DOT. (ii) He referred to the work-sheets attached to the Show Cause Notice and submitted that in many cases, service tax amounts paid by DOT was more than the service tax amounts due. In certain months, it was the other way, but the Department has raised the present demand by considering only those cases wherein service tax paid was less than the Service Tax due. If the excess paid service tax was also taken to account, the final demand would work out to be far lesser. (iii) He also submitted that certain services provided by the DOT/BSNL were exempted at the relevant time by Notification No. 3/94-ST dated 13/06/1994. Such services were available to Departmentally run Public Telephones, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed before the Adjudicating Authority that service Tax was paid up to August 2003 by DOT and only from September 2003, BSNL started making such payments. But the Adjudicating Authority has recorded that absolutely, no documentary evidence was submitted for the period up to September 2003 when the Service Tax was claimed to have been paid by DOT. In the absence of any such documentary evidences, he has declined to consider any of the submissions advanced before him. 7. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Advocate has highlighted several errors in the calculation attached by the department in the Show Cause Notice. It has also been submitted that in many cases excess Service Tax has been deposited by DOT but the same was not tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
