2019 (3) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egory of "Insurance Auxiliary Service". That they received an amount of Rs. 7,15,90,051/- during the period from October 2003 to June 2008 from M/s. PACL, Naya Nangal involving total service tax liability of Rs. 77,85,009/- which was allegedly not discharged by the appellant. 2.1 The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai vide impugned Order dated 27.10.2010 inter alia confirming the tax liability proposed in the Show Cause Notice with interest thereon and also for imposing penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, this appeal. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri. M.N. Bharathi m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat they had written a letter on 14.06.2010 to M/s. PACL, Chandigarh requesting them to check up their records and confirm that the figures given by M/s. PACL to the Department included even the claim amounts/premium/refund, etc. In fact, the appellant's Chandigarh Office, in their note dated 16.06.2010 confirmed that the figures shown by the Chandigarh Commissionerate Office were the total credit amount shown in PACL books which concluded figures such as premium/claims which should have been excluded for computing the taxable value related to M/s. PACL. The Commissioner in paragraph 9 of the impugned Order, states that he had gone on the basis of M/s. PACL's figures given to the Chandigarh Commissionerate; (iv) Therefore, it is quite cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equired therein and the appellant had not produced records and documents called for by the proper officer finalizing provisional assessment; (vii) The appellant being a public sector undertaking, had no intention to suppress any fact or document called for with a view to evade tax in any manner. 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the adjudication and opposes the appeal. 6. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. We find that the appellants had joined the Large Taxpayer Unit with effect from 24.01.2008 as evident from the letter of the appellant to the Commissioner, Chandigarh dated 24.08.2009 in response to the Show Cause Notice at page 52 of the Appea....