2016 (11) TMI 1142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R) for the respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) which upheld the demand of service tax, interest and penalty. 2. The appellants are providing TV/Radio programme production service. During the audit of accounts of the appellant, it was noticed by the Department that appellant had not paid service tax on the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act, 1994. The amount paid by appellant was ordered to be appropriated. In appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the same. The appellant is thus before the Tribunal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri R Ramakrishna submitted that though the appellant had put forward the contention of cum-tax benefit the same was not allowed by the authorities below. He submitted that a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore the penalty imposed is not legal and proper. 4. On behalf of the Department, learned AR Shri Nagaraj Naik strongly defended the impugned order. He adverted to sub-section (2) of Section 67 and submitted that when the service provider has not separately stated in the invoices the amount of service tax or indicated in the invoice that the amount collected is inclusive of service tax, the ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... records. The foremost argument put forward by the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been denied the cum-tax benefit while computing the demand. The appellant vide letter dt. 15/07/2008 has submitted to the Department that the appellant would be liable to pay only Rs. 11,12,910/- on the amounts received from Vishnu Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Zee TV etc. On perusal of the ledger acc....