TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amount of Rs.15,75,182/- which was not paid by the appellant to the principal and there is said to have been an illegal retention of the same - Inspite of that there is a finding by the Tribunal that the contention of the petitioner so far as the retention of the amount of Rs.15,75,182/- collected till 2014, seems to be per se contrary to the materials and documents available with the department. So also is contrary to the documents which the appellant herein had produced before the authorities concerned and had also contended even uptill the stage of the CESTAT which has not been properly appreciated by the same. Where admittedly an amount of Rs.20,156,29/- at the first instance itself was transferred by the appellant to the princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 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 subsequently challenged by the appellant herein in a separate set of appeal which is pending consideration. He further submits that in the instant case the appeal is confined so far as the retention of service tax collected by the petitioner for and on behalf of the principal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Bench to the findings given by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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-disputedly stands remitted by the appellant to the principal and there was a balance of amount of Rs.15,75,182/- which was not paid by the appellant to the principal and there is said to have been an illegal retention of the same. 8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner along with the instant appeal has produced on record a document showing that the difference of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
