9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri B. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Subba Rao. 1. These appeals are filed against Orders-in-Original Nos. 12/2008-ST dated 31.12.2008 & 11/2009-ST dated 29.05.2009. 2. The appellant herein is a partnership firm engaged in removal of overburden for M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL) and they have entered into an agreement with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which they have received from SCCL and have contravened the provisions of Sec.66 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules. It was also proposed to impose penalties under Sec.76 & 78. After following due process, the Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand and imposed penalties as proposed. The present appeals are against the impugned orders on the following grounds. (i) Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m-duty amount. Accordingly, service tax was calculated. Meanwhile, the appellant was negotiating with SCCL who have agreed to reimburse the service tax. This fact was not disclosed to the department. In fact, when SCCL agreed to reimburse the service tax, the appellant should have paid the duty on the full amount without taking the amount as cum-duty receipt. He would argue that this is not in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount so charged is taken as cum-tax amount and the tax is calculated backwards. In this case, the amount received by the appellant was much higher than what they have disclosed to the department as a result of their re-negotiation with their clients and hence the differential duty arose. In these facts and circumstances, the amount received by them cannot be equated with the reimbursable expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
