2017 (9) TMI 794

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity Service and Business Auxiliary Service. During the period October 2005 to February 2007 the appellant did not make the payment in time i.e. 5th day of the succeeding month when they received the payment. The demand on account of interest was calculated by calculating the period from the date of issuance of invoice till the date of realization of payment. Therefore, the demand of interest of Rs. 3,04,340/- was raised by issuance of show cause notice. Apart from that, the appellant is providing manpower services to M/s Allied Nippon Ltd., a 100% EOU and intimated to the Department on 29th October 2005 that as they are providing service to a 100% EOU which is located in SEZ area where the service are exempt, therefore, they are not paying ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals) hold that as appellant has not provided documentary evidence in support of the interest claim and affirmed the order of adjudication. He also did not consider the issue of limitation. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has provided details of interest for the intervening period i.e. for whole of the period in dispute. It is fact on record but the Adjudicating Authority mainly hold that the appellant has provided details of interest only for the period October 2005 to December 2006. Further, submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has verified that the service tax paid by the appellant co-relates to the services provided to M/s Allied Nip....