TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present are that the appellants are engaged in providing the service in the category of Manpower Recruitment/Supply Agency and Works Contract. During the course ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the imposition of penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the said Circular, the proceedings are deemed to be concluded. He also submitted that though he has paid the interest amount of Rs. 2,42,380/- on the Service Tax amount under Section 75 of the said Act and that too before the issuance of SCN but both the authorities have wrongly come to the conclusion that this interest relates to some other amount without specifying as to which amount it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been made by the appellant. The Original Authority could have easily verified the fact as to which demand, this interest relates to but the same has not been specifically verified by the Original Authority and the Commissioner (A) has also not gone in to this aspect and simply confirmed the Order-in-Original. Further, I find that since the appellant has paid the Service Tax prior to the issuance ....