2018 (9) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er: Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against order in appeal no. AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-082-17-18 dated 25.09.2017 whereby the Ld. Commissioner (A) upheld the order in original. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in providing the services of mandap keeping, restaurant and hotel accommodation. During the period April 2011- March 2015, they have not correctly discharged th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... paid. He submits that the total liability of Rs. 21,23,463/- raised by the department is not correct. In this regard, he placed the reconciliation chart according to which the short period service tax liability comes to Rs. 1,83,244/- only as against confirmed amount upheld by the lower authority. On this ground, the penalty under section 77 & 78 should not have been imposed. He also submits that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that the actual liability amounts to Rs. 1,83,244/- and the demand confirmed by the lower authority, i.e. Rs. 21,23,463/- is not correct. Even on this ground the relief of the penalty can be given only after establishing that the actual liability should be Rs. 1,83,244/- and not the amount confirmed by the lower authority. The appellant have not produced the reconciliation before the lower autho....