TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant. Manish Mohan for the Respondent. ORDER P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself can be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for hearing and disposal. Against an adverse order passed by the original authority, who demanded differential tax of ove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-deposit. The main grievance raised by the appellants is that they did not realize the differential tax amount from their clients and, hence, did not deposit the same with the Revenue. They had got themselves registered with the department in respect of the taxable service as early as in the year 2003. During the period of dispute (13-5-2003 to 30-9-2006), they returned lesser value for the purpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounts collected from their clients, it could hardly be pleaded that the correct amount of service tax could not be paid as the correct amount was not collected from their clients. We have not come across any other valid ground for the appellants. However, these observations of ours are not to influence the lower Appellate Authority, who has not discussed the case on merits in the impugned order, a....