2008 (2) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mrs. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: S. L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - 1. The appellants are required to pre-deposit service tax amount of Rs. 3,03,77,607/- and penalty of 4,00,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act and Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76 and Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Act. They have paid an amount of Rs. 54,18,230/- towards the service tax and an amou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....khs cannot be considered and rejected the pleas and confirmed the demands. 2. The learned Counsel submits that there is a clear violation of remand directions. He submits that they had produced evidence before the Commissioner and the Commissioner should have quantified or should have got the invoices verified with regard to the sales price which have not been done. He cannot summarily reject t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....value is deductible from the service contract. It was the submission of the appellants that they have paid the service tax on the commission received by them in respect of the AMC contracts. He submits that the confirmation of demand is totally unjustified in the light of the Notification and the judgments cited supra. 3. The learned SDR seriously opposed the prayers and submits that the burden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s as 70% without substantiating their claim by producing invoices for the purchase of spares and parts. She took us through the charts to substantiate the pleas and submits that the actual cost of material has not been submitted by the assessee. 4. The learned Counsel in reply submits that all details had been furnished before the Commissioner but he has not examined the evidence on records. ....