TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt : Shri T. R. Ramesh , Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R. Rajaraman , Assistant Commissioner ( A. R ) ORDER Order : Per Ms. Sulekha Beevi C. S. Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in providing services in the nature of Custom House Agent Services. They are also registered with the Department. During the course of audit conduced by internal audit party, it was noticed that the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 . On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri T.R. Ramesh appeared and argued for the appellant. Ld. Counsel adverted to the show cause notice and submitted that as per Anne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bursable expenses and therefore such an amount has not been included in the taxable value while filing the ST-3 returns. Annexure-C of the SCN raises a demand of Rs.79,599/- for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09. It is submitted that the value debit notes raised for the said period was included in the profit and loss statement and has been duplicated once again for which the demand has been raised. Wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Apex Court and being interpretational issue the extended period cannot be invoked. The appellant having put forward reasonable cause for non-payment of the differential amount of service tax, it is pleaded that the penalty imposed under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 may be waived. 5. Ld. A.R Shri R. Rajaraman supported the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. From....