TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions of the appellant at paragraph 3 in the grounds of appeal that quantum of service tax is incorrect and that the correct demand should be Rs. ₹ 3,04,452/-. However, no findings were recorded in the said order, quantifying the actual service tax liability, which was required to be paid by the appellant, The matter should go back to the original Authority for computation of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.02.2018 has upheld the adjudged demand. Feeling agreed with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted the statement, showing that the actual service tax liability should be ₹ 3,04,452/-, instead of ₹ 5,05,894/-, as confirmed in the adjudication order. He further submits that du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the taxable service provided by it to the service receiver. The appellant is also not contesting such liability, but contended that the tax liability has been wrongly arrived at. In this context, I find that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 has recorded the submissions of the appellant at paragraph 3 in the grounds of appeal that quantum of service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er such circumstance, the provisions of Section 78 of the Act cannot be applied for payment of equal amount of penalty. So far as invocation of Section 78 of the Act is concerned, the basic requirements to be fulfilled are that non-payment of service tax was owing to the reason of fraud, suppression, misstatement etc., with the intent to evade payment of tax. In this case, since the value of taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
