9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent ORDER The Appellant is a provider of Security Services to various corporates. Based on investigation taken up, a demand of Rs.17,43,346/- was made on the Appellant on ground that Service Tax was not paid by them for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11. The investigating officials collected cheques for Rs.10,00,000/- in the course of investigation. Subsequently, after due process, the Adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IO as deposited amount and issued SVLDR-2 demanding further Rs.23,002. The Appellant vide SVLDR-2A has submitted that they are not agreeing with the further demand of Rs.23,002/- in the SVLDRS-2 Form. After this, no further action was taken by the Department and they were not issued the SVLDRS-4 Discharge Certificate. 2. The Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant makes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eculiar case where the Appellant had paid the entire amount of confirmed demand of Rs.17,43,346/- along with interest of Rs.5,98,748/- and also had made some more pre-deposit at the time of filing the Appeal before the Tribunal. Under the SVLDR Scheme for the amount confirmed against this Appellant, mere payment of about Rs.6,00,000/-would have been enough to get the benefit of this scheme. The De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
