TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,96,001/- produced the evidences of deposit of service tax of Rs. 75,31,939/- only, thus failed to deposit service tax of Rs. 49,64,062/-. In the present matter Appellant neither provided any evidences before the adjudicating authority/Commissioner (Appeals) nor before this tribunal to show that they have paid the disputed service tax. Therefore, the demand of Service Tax confirmed by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is legally correct. CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- The appellant could not produce any evidence or documents on the basis of which credit of Rs. 6478/- was taken. Accordingly, the demand is sustainable. There are no infirmity with the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. Imposed penalty of Rs. 49,64,062/- on the Appellant under Section 78. Imposed Penalty of Rs. 1000/- on Shri Rahul Nanda. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original. The Appellant is thus before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. As per the appeal, the appellant submits that confirmation of entire demand by the both the authority based on the reports of the Jurisdictional officers of Central Excise is totally erroneous and illegal. The Service tax liability during the entire period was to the tune of Rs. 1,24,96,001/- out of which admittedly the appellants have been alleged that they have not produced challans for Rs. 19,62,528/- Out of theses challans for Rs. 10,27,763/- was for the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Therefore, the disallowance of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 6,478/- was correctly done. 4.1 He strongly submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed penalty, as they issued invoice charging service tax from their clients but failed to deposit the same with an intention to evasion of duty. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Salim Travels Vs. Commissioner of CGST Cx., Mumbai reported in 2019(31) GSTL 64 (Bom) and decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharmednra Textile Mills Ltd. 2008 (231) ELT 3 (S.C.) and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 2009 (238) ELT 3 (S.C.) 5. We have considered the submissions made by Learned Authorized Representative and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
