2008 (9) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ithia for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This is a revenue's appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is an advertising firm which was taking credit of input service received by them. On a scrutiny of the ST3 returns filed by them for half year ending September 2003 it was noticed that they had wrongly filed returns showing availment of Service tax credit for Rs. 1,99,997 out....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ember 2003. The show-cause notice was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority who disallowed the Service tax credit of Rs. 1,99,997 and also confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,21,117 along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 100 per day subject to maximum penalty of Rs. 3,21,024 under section 76 and another penalty of Rs. 3,50,000 under section 78. The respondent filed an appeal against t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service received by them which was in contravention of rule 3(1) of the Service Tax Credit Rules. In view of this, it was submitted that the credit amount of Rs. 80,892 in respect of 67 bills not produced and another Rs. 65,744 in respect of 14 bills for which credit was taken before input service credit needs to be recovered. 3. The consultant on behalf of the respondent submitted that in res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made, which fact needs verification by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into this issue at all, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to look into the claim of revenue as admitted by the respondent also that the 67 bills involving amount of Rs. 80,892 were never produced by them nor are available with them. He shall also....