9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regional Branch, Hyderabad, in ST/3246/2012, dated 13.04.2023. 3. There were two issues which were raised before the appellate Tribunal. One was so far the retention of the service tax collected on behalf of the principal by the petitioner/assessee. The second issue was so far as the business auxiliary service for the commissioner received by the appellant. So far as the second issue i.e., as regards business auxiliary service is concerned the appellate tribunal had vide the impugned the order itself remitted the matter for a adjudication. 4. Today, it has been informed that the said proceedings has already been finalized and the authority concerned has confirmed the demand so raised and the said conformation of demand has again been subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of confirmed demand of Rs.38,53,951/-. The appeal stands dismissed to this extent." 6. From the plain reading of the aforesaid finding of the Appellate Tribunal what appears is that the findings so awarded has been on the ground that the appellant herein has not supported his contention or backed his claim with any cogent evidence and that the fact remains that there was a retention of an amount of Rs.15,75,182/- of service tax collected till 2014 not have been paid back to the principal. 7. A perusal of the facts involved in the case would give a clear picture of the total amount of Rs.38,53,951/- towards service tax collected by the petitioner on behalf of the principal, of the said amount, an amount of Rs.20,15,629/- un-dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly been deposited with the department directly establishes the fact that the entire service tax collected by the appellant herein to the tune of Rs.35,90,811/- stand paid either to the Principal or to department and as such there was no retention of the service tax collected by him beyond 23.07.2013.
10. To the aforesaid extent the finding in paragraph No.4 given by CESTAT is not sustainable. We are of the firm view that the said finding for the aforesaid reasons being unsustainable, deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The demand raised for the payment of Rs.38,53,951/- stands set aside/quashed.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this appeal, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
