TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal had passed an order confirming the demand and applying the extend period of limitation in the present appeal based on following grounds : (i) That the demand with reference to service tax pertaining to Insurance services rendered prior to 1-7-1994 received after the said date is confirmed on account of absence of requisite documentary evidence (Reference para 9 of the order). (ii) That the demand in respect of the adjustment of tax from one head to another was also not allowed for want of evidence (Reference para 9 of the order). (iii) That the extended period was made applicable on account of suppression and misstatements of facts as figures disclosed in ST-3 return did not tally with other statutory requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es 6(3) and 7(4). The copies of the text of the relevant sections and rules are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure II. The said return was duly accepted and never objected to by the Department. The finding of the ld. Commissioner at internal page 8 of the order in original marked as Annexure D is that the Group Personal Accident Premium cannot be adjusted with the General Insurance Premium is contrary to the assessment done on consolidated basis by the Departmental authorities and is also against the provisions of law as mentioned above. 4. That with regard to the contention No. (iii) in para 1, the applicants submit that on the basis of the available documents and submissions made, it is wrong to say that the ST-3 return were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds of appeal are contrary to each other and not consider the premium of Rs. 2,28,991/-. (ii) That the carelessness on account of preparation of the calculation sheet is accepted by the Department itself vide internal page 7 of the order-in-original in respect of the difference in the premium amounts as follow : Month Premium as per calculation sheet Actual Premium Difference (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) June '95     88,349    80,238   8,111 July '95     46,222    1,26,022   79,800     1,34,571 &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the course of audit, it was observed that the applicant had shown the value of taxable services amounting to Rs. 14,05,98,249/- in their quarterly returns (except GPA Premium) instead of 15,29,41,258/- actually collected by them. It was, therefore, alleged that the applicants had paid Rs. 6,17,167/- less as service tax during the aforesaid period. A SCN was issued to the applicant asking them to explain as to why service tax of the above amount should not be collected from them and why interest also should not be recovered and why a penalty should not be imposed. The Tribunal after examining the various submissions made by the applicant and on perusal of the records confirmed the order-in-original. 4. We have heard Shri Sameer J....