2009 (10) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax of Rs. 7,92,29,929. During the adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner agreed with the contention of the appellant that the income in the profit & loss account comprised of different sources and all of them are not liable to service tax; he also agreed with the assessee's contention that the substantial portion of demand related to the amount accrued for providing services but consideration for the services not received and on these grounds the substantial amount of demand was dropped. It was found that the appellants were liable to Rs. 97,387 which has been confirmed with interest as applicable. Further, penalty of Rs. 200 per day under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, Rs. 97,387 under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 have be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the company in the year 2002-03 was about Rs. 383 crores, in the year 2003-04 it was more than Rs. 536 crores and the appellants have paid the service tax on amount of more than Rs. 370 crores in 2002-03 and on more than Rs. 445 crores in 2003-04, whereas the amount of service tax short paid, that too, after ignoring the excess amount, is Rs. 97,387 which again supports the case of the appellant that there was no intention to suppress/mis-declare facts to evade payment of service tax. 4. Learned SDR, on the other hand, submits that the appellants are required to file ST-3 return and ST-3 return is supposed to reflect the amount received for the services provided and service tax payable thereon. If the ST-3 return was filed correctly, t....