2007 (9) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eals), Jaipur. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 78,025/- under Section 68, interest under Section 75 and penalty under Sections 76, 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are challenging the chargeability of the tax but their grievance is mainly on the following grounds ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urther submitted that for the entire disputed period i.e. 16-8-2002 to 31-12-2003, the department (as per the statement of the appellant) conceded Rs. 9,45,000/- as a reasonable figure of taxable value and therefrom computed the tax liability on them (Rs. 56,671/-). Overlooking this fact, the department had erroneously computed tax liability of Rs. 21,358/- for the period between 1-9-2003 and 31-1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er raised this point. Similarly, the appellants never raised their grievance about the double taxation and valuation method etc. before the lower authorities and they are bringing this for the first time before this forum. Though it was contended that new issues cannot be raised at this juncture, the learned DR has no answer relating to the issue of "double taxation" as raised by the appellant. 5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the authorities below. As regards the period of turmoil on account of fierce rivalry which existed during the relevant period, the Assistant Commissioner has simply sated that he did not accept their submission. While arriving at this conclusion, he has not given any reason as to why he did not accept their submission. I, therefore, find that the orders have been passed hastily by the authorities ....