TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant assessee rendered service of commercial and industrial construction services. They have taken registration on 17.10.2006. They received an advance of Rs.10,50,000/- referred to as "mobilization advance" on 13.12.2006 and commenced the work and received payments periodically. The subsequent bills were issued partly adjusting the advance paid initially in December 2006 by deducting 5% of the bill amount. The show-cause notice dt. 4.6.08 was issued proposing demand of Rs.2,72,777/- and seeking to appropriate a sum of Rs.1,90,988/- and interest amount of Rs.15,675/- paid on 23.10.2007 and proposing penalties under various Sections. The document relied upon in the show cause notice, however, indicates that the appellant-assessee has paid a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service tax amount leading to duplication of demand. While, there is a demand of service tax on the amount of Rs.10,50,000/- received in December 2006 as advance, in the subsequent bills though the amount received is lesser than the invoice amount because of adjustment of advance already received, the same has not been taken into account and service tax has been demanded on the entire amount. Further, the recipient has also retained part of the bill amount which was payable only on completion of the entire work subject to the satisfaction of the recipient. Service tax has been confirmed on the said amount which was not received during the relevant period. He further submits that when the retained amount was subsequently received by the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al authority in toto. He fairly concedes that there is a discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the SCN as having been deposited by the assessee and the amount actually adjusted in the order of the original authority and that of the Commissioner (Appeals). He also submits that the claim that they have paid Rs.2,57,432/- towards service tax and a sum of Rs.17,950/- towards interest requires to be verified as the same has not been submitted before the original authority. 6.1. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. Undisputedly, the appellant-assessee has not filed reply to the SCN eventhough nearly a year has lapsed after issue of the SCN. The order-in-original records that the personal hearings ....