TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 17.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam-II Commissionerate. 2. Shri MSV Prasad, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellants M/s. Chandra Shipping and Trading Services are registered as "Custom House Agent". They also have registration as GTA. Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they had not paid the proper amount of service tax for the period from 2001, 2002 to 2004, 2005. There was also an allegation of wrongful availment of input credit. The Adjudicating Authority after adjudication passed the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t services have come to light only during the course of audit by the audit party. It was stressed by the learned Consultant that this finding is factually incorrect, since the assessee had been filing ST-3 returns in the prescribed format showing the taxable value in terms of Board's Circular and had been filing Cenvat credit returns indicating the credits taken and utilized. Our attention was invited to page 73-76 and 104 and 91 of the paper book Volume-II wherein they enclosed the copies of the ST-3 returns and the Cenvat credit returns submitted by them to the department. It was urged that the department was fully aware as to how the appellant is calculating the taxable value and using the input service credit. The detailed work sheets a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CHA. There is no evidence that the reimbursements had not been received by the appellant. Moreover, the assessee had maintained detailed accounts of these expenses which were categorized and given to the audit party besides evidences of invoice raised and payments raised. The audit never questioned the correctness of the expenses shown or the records where they are entered. In respect of an amount of Rs. 9,61,335/- it represents abatement of 85% from lump sum service charges claimed in terms of para 2.5 of the Board's Circular. This also the Commissioner has disallowed on the ground that the bills raised show separate breakup of expenses. It was pleaded that apart from the lump sum fee several activities were undertaken for discharge and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. It was also pleaded that in view of their two issues covered by merit in favour of the appellants, the penalty cannot be imposed. However, the learned Consultant stated that they are prepared to pay an amount of Rs. 51,384/- on extra amounts collected along with interest voluntarily. 7. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated impugned order. She stated that the Commissioner has given a very detailed finding regarding the suppression of facts and the justification for invoking the longer period. 8. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the ST-3 returns and also the Cenvat credit returns have been filed regularly by the appellant. In view of this, the larger period cannot be invoked. Therefore, we are....