TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in providing taxable services under the category of Advertising Service and holding a valid service tax registration No. AADHR2726RST001. During the course of audit of the records of the appellants, it was observed that the income shown in the Profit and Loss accounts was exceeded by Rs. 5,27,45,530/- with compared to the income shown in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order modified the order in original to the extent that the demand beyond 5 years was set aside and accordingly the adjudicating authority was directed to re-quantify the demand. However, the demand for the rest of the period was upheld along with interest. The Ld. Commissioner also upheld the penalties ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity. He submits that at the relevant period, the service tax was chargeable only on the actual receipt of the gross value of service provided, whereas in the balance sheet entire billed value is booked. Therefore, the total income shown in the balance sheet does not represent the actual receipt of gross value. Therefore, there is a grave error in this respect committed by the adjudicating authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... vs CCE Surat-I 2013 (290) ELT 322 (Guj.) 3. Sh. L. Patra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as per the Annexure-A of SCN demand was rightly quantified, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order. As regard the facts which were suppressed and as and when it was pointed out by the dep....