TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulation leaves a very small amount of duty to be paid, it would serve the ends of justice if the same is verified and then examined in connection with the law and Boards Circulars referred to by the Appellant. The matter hence merits to be examined afresh. The impugned order set aside - matter remanded back to the original authority for de novo adjudication - appeal disposed off. - Hon ble Shri P. Dinesha , Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar , Member ( Technical ) Smt. Radhika Chandrasekar , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rudra Pratap Singh , ADC ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER Per M. Ajit Kumar , This appeal arises out of Order in Original No. No. 1/2013 dated 17.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manding service tax of Rs.2,26,78,345/- under proviso to sec. 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for rendering Programme Producers Service and Advertising Service during the period from October 2004 to March 2009, demanding interest under sec. 73 of the Act and proposing penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. In adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the said services for the disputed period and imposed penalties under sec. 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard learned counsel Smt. Radhika Chandrasekar for the appellant and Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. 4. The learned counsel has submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncludable for the purposes of levy of service tax and that the Appellant has already discharged service tax with respect to the agency commission. She pleaded that the learned Original Authority has not taken into consideration the payments made by the Appellant and there is no discussion or finding in this regard. The Appellant had also submitted a reconciliation statement showing the actual gross billing for service tax purpose as under: Year ADVT (Advertising Service) liability as shown in the SCN ADVT (Advertising Service) liability as per Appellant s records ADVT (Advertising Service) Service Tax paid Difference payable 2004-05 2,64,111 2,64,111 2,64,111 0 2005-06 17,80,562 1,36,654 1,36,654 0 2006-07 30,69,633 3,98,755 3,93,121 5,634 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
