2018 (12) TMI 1480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case are that the appellant are engaged in providing port services and during the relevant period from April 2010 to March 2011 they have adjusted an amount of Rs. 1,64,01,668/- being service tax paid in excess. Show cause notice was issued to them op scrutiny of the ST-3 returns for the relevant period alleging that they have not complied with the conditions prescribed under Rule 6 (3) and Rule 6(4B) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and proposal for recovery of the amount adjusted along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. Revenue is in Appeal challenging the quantum of penalty imposed under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that during the course of adjudication proceedings, the Ld. Commissioner has called for a report from the field formation seeking verification of the excess payment of service tax received from their customers which refunded to them on issuance of credit notes. Analyzing the said report, the Ld. Commissioner observed that the credit notes were issued for billing and accounting settlement on account of discounts/ rebates and not relation to the services not provided or excess value charge against the rates fixed/ agreed between the parties. 5. In his rejoinder, the Ld. C.A. for the appellant submits that copy of report of the Dy. Commissioner, Service Tax, Raigad was not handed over to them. Thus, they could not get opportunity to explain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of service tax paid on the value of services not provided or such amount has been adjusted subsequently, that is, in the present case during the period April 2010 to March 2011. The Ld. Commissioner on the basis of the report of Dy. Commissioner held that in certain cases that the appellant had not provided services and other cases, it is adjustment against bill. Copy of the said report was not handed over to the appellant, hence the appellant could not make any submission on the same. The Ld. C.A. vehemently argued that invariably in all cases wherever the services are either not provided or excess value was charged, they refunded the amount to the customer by issuing credit notes. Also, we find that for the subsequent period this Tribu....