9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 25 May, 2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Division, Jabalpur. 2. The proceedings against the Appellant were initiated by issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated September, 2012 (the exact date has not been mentioned in the Show Cause Notice). The important paragraphs containing the reason for issuance of the Show Cause Notice are reproduced below: 2. On scrutiny of ST-3 returns (ANNEXURE-F) and challans (ANNEXURE-G) vis-à-vis P&l. A/c and ledgers (ANNEXURE-H) of the party for the year 2007-08 produced before the audit, it was noticed that the party have received taxable amount of Rs. 3,37,65,015/- during 2007-08. However, on perusal of ST-3 returns, it was noticed that they have paid serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Cause Notice and from the Order-in-Original it clearly transpires that when the authorised signatory of the party appeared for personal hearing on 28 December, 2012 before the Deputy Commissioner, it was pointed out that it would be clear from the letter dated 24 December, 2012 submitted by the Appellant in reply to the Show Cause Notice that they had already paid the tax demanded by two challans. The relevant paragraph of the Order is reproduced below: "8. Party failed to submit reply to the notice within the time stipulated therein. In the interest of principal of natural justice, opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the party on 28.12.2012. Sh. S.K. Singh, Authorised signatory of the party appeared for personal hearing on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) to assail the aforesaid order dated 28 May, 2014. One of the ground raised by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals), which has also been summarised by the Commissioner (Appeals), is as follows : "That the appellant reiterates the grounds raised before the Commissioner, which are summarized as under: 1. Statement for Loading & Transportation of Coal from Baiga OCM Face to Burhar Siding for the period from 03.10.2007 to 28.02.2008. MONTH TRANSPORTATION LOADING TOTAL October-07 204645.00 108177.00 312822.00 November-07 222183.00 117450.00 339633.00 December-07 332679.00 175859.00 508538.00 January-08 174287.00 92131.00 266418.00 March-08 NIL NIL NIL Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess: Amount billed for the March, 2008 covered under SCN dated 20.02.2013 (subject matter of Appeal No. ST/51155/2017) (23,14,052) (50,98,394) (74,12,446) Balance Taxable Value on accrual basis (A) 84,89,740 1,78,62,829 2,63,52,569 Actual Receipts upon which tax is paid in ST-3 Returns (B) - - 2,49,25,158 Balance receipts for the period 2007-08 received in month of April, 2008 and ST is discharged. (C= A-B) 4,93,617 9,33,794 14,27,411 (Note-1) Service Tax demand @12.36% (C*12.36%) (Disputed demand in present Appeal) - - 1,76,429 Note 1:- To substantiate the submissions, CA certificate is enclosed." 11. The statement made in the aforesaid financial summary is based on a certificate given by the Char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the amount was actually received by the Appellant and in support of his submission the learned Chartered Accountant has placed reliance upon the certificate given by the Chartered Accountant, that mentions that the aforesaid amount was received by the Appellant in April 2008 and the Service Tax liability was discharged by the Appellant in April, 2008 through the two challans dated 29 April 2008 and 29 April 2008. 13. Learned Authorised Representative of the Department has, however, supported the impugned order and has stated that the difference of tax liability of Rs. 1,76,429/- may have accrued because both the transportation and loading tax liability was included in the challans. 14. We have considered the submissions advanced by le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of the Appellant for the reason that the tax amount mentioned in the two challans would also include that tax amount for the other amount received by the Appellant in the month April, 2008. It would have been different if the amount mentioned in the Challans was lesser than Rs. 1,76,429/- because in that case the Appellant would not have discharged the entire tax liability. 19. The Commissioner (Appeals) completely failed to advert to this issue in the order even though the said submission was noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 20. Such being the position, there is no short payment of Service Tax for the period in issue. The impugned Order dated 3 December, 2015, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
