TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid the amount of Rs.3,83,042/- on 08.04.2010 vide Challan No.06 through e-payment. However, the Show Cause Notice was issued later, demanding Service Tax of Rs.73,92,587/- on 13.01.2012. The appellant has not suppressed any information from the Department. They have been filing returns regularly. The audit has examined all the accounts and found only a short payment of Rs.3,83,042/- for the years 2007-08 to 2008-09. Hence, there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty established in this case. Accordingly, the demand of Service Tax confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. The demand of Service Tax, if any, beyond the normal period of limitation, is not sustai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order. The year-wise demand of Service Tax to be paid by the appellant has been re-quantified and confirmed, as below: - F.Y. Service Tax (in Rs.) Edu. Cess (in Rs.) S HE Cess (in Rs.) Total (in Rs.) F.Y. 07-08 23,93,197/- 47,864/- 15,978/- 24,57,039/- F.Y. 08-09 20,57,562/- 41,150/- 20,575/- 21,19,287/- F.Y. 09-10 14,05,969/- 28,119/- 14,060/- 14,48,148/- F.Y. 10-11 8,72,560/- 17,451/- 8,726/- 8,98,737/- Total 67,29,288/- 1,34,584/- 59,339/- 69,23,211/- 2.1 Aggrieved against the confirmation of the demand in the impugned order, as above, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no suppression of facts in this case. They have already paid the differential duty as pointed out by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 We observe that the appellant has not suppressed any information from the Department. They have been filing returns regularly. The audit has examined all the accounts and found only a short payment of Rs.3,83,042/- for the years 2007-08 to 2008-09. Hence, there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty established in this case. Accordingly, we hold that the demand of Service Tax confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 7. During the time of hearing, the appellant submits that there is an interest liability of Rs.1,05,581/- for the period 2007-08 which is payable by them towards the delayed payment of Service Tax, which they agreed to pay. 8. In view of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
