TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no, Superintendent (Authorised Representative), ORDER:- B.S.V. MURTHY (Technical Member).-The appellant is engaged in providing storage and warehousing service and on a scrutiny of the returns filed for the period from October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 it was found that the appellant was liable to pay service tax of Rs. 6,24,075. Out of total tax payable, the appellant paid the tax due by in ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of a large number of invoices, there was no proof of payment of the amounts mentioned and in respect of 12 invoices the credit was not available since bills were not in the name of the assessee and in respect of 5 invoices assessee had paid the amount only on December 7, 2007 and therefore adjustment could not have been made in respect of past demands. In the grounds of appeal before the Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up for disposal. Heard the learned Authorised Representative. She submits that the appeal memorandum filed by the appellant is totally wrong and appeal has been filed on a totally wrong ground. They have stated in the appeal memorandum that the claim has been rejected on the ground that the appellants did not submit copies of invoices on which CENVAT credit is availed of whereas the invoices were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is quite clear that the original adjudicating authority had considered the invoices submitted and in fact had allowed more than Rs. 40,000 credit to the appellant. The balance was disallowed on specific ground that the invoices not being in the name of the assessee or proof of payments have not been produced. I find both these issues have not been contested nor rebutted either before Commission....