2011 (2) TMI 838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... engaged in providing business auxiliary service and a demand of Rs.8,670/- comprising of Rs.8,500/- towards service tax and Rs.170 towards education cess has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the credit had been taken twice by the appellant on the same invoice and therefore the same was not admissible. Penalty equal to the service tax demanded has been imposed under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant in respect of invoice No.694 was not at all reflected in the annexure to the ST-3 return even though appellant was eligible to take the credit since payment was also made on the same date of the invoice namely 30.03.05. He drew my attention to the ST-3 return also wherein the service tax payable was Rs.8,06,373/- whereas the appellant had actually paid 8,06,683/-, the difference being Rs.3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oice dated 30.03.05 and has confirmed the demand on the ground that credit was taken twice on the same invoice. Similarly learned Commissioner (Appeals) also has observed that the appellant s plea that it is just a mistake of data entry error of voucher is not tenable and if the same had been a mistake of data entry the appellant would have cleared the matter at the time of audit itself as ample t....