9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 1. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SVTAX-HYC-APP-135/17-18(APP-I) dated 27.03.2018. 2. The appellants are engaged in the business of works contract services. During the course of verification of records by the department, it was noticed that they have not paid service tax on the works contract service provided by them during the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty imposed under Section 78 to Rs. 4,43,197/. Aggrieved by this order the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the officers had arrived at a decision that there was a short payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 6,80,484/- which needs to be recovered along with interest. Subsequently, before the issue of show cause notice th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. Therefore the demand and interest needed to be recomputed accordingly. Further, he would argue that as per Section 73(3) where service tax has been levied or paid as has been short read or short paid are erroneously refunded, the person chargable with the service tax or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been paid may pay the amount of such service tax chargable or erroneously ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial year works out to Rs. 6,11,555/-. On this account, they have paid Rs. 3,00,718/- before issue of show cause notice and Rs. 3,10,837/- subsequently. Thus they have paid an excess amount of Rs. 68,933/- which may be adjusted towards their interest liability. The contention of the appellant regarding their eligibility to exemption was rejected by the First Appellate Authority on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
