9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CAL MEMBER L.B. Yadav for the Appellant. Atul Gupta for the Respondent. ORDER M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member. - This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner No. 39(MPM)ST/JPR-I/2006 dated 28-4-2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The respondent rendered "management consultancy services" and received service charges from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. (d) On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty. He also held that the withheld amount of TDS should be treated as cum-tax amount for the purpose of levy of service tax and accordingly, reduced the service tax demand from Rs. 7,58,323 to Rs. 7,05,441 and the interest from Rs. 2,36,098 to Rs. 2,21,003. (e) The Department is in appeal ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant and the said amount was paid to the Income-tax Department by the Rajasthan Government agencies; the service tax payable on the entire with held amount has been paid by the Rajasthan Government agencies. There was no mala fide intention on their part; it was a case of pure interpretation of law as to whether service tax was payable on the withheld TDS amount or not. The benefit of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
