2009 (3) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri V.S. Manoj, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This stay petition and appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 4/2008, dated 28-5-2008. Vide impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has ordered the following. ORDER (i) I confirm the demand of Rs. 1,71,09,408/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and eight only) on them under Section 78 of the Act. (vi) I impose a penalty which shall be not less than Rs. 200/- per day during the continuation of the failure or @ 2% per month of the tax payable under Section 76 ibid from the first day of the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount, whichever is greater for the amounts mentioned in (ii) above. (vii) I impose ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... registered under the Section 69 of the Finance Act, under the taxable services viz., "Clearing and Forwarding Agents Services" vide Service Tax Registration No. 22/72/C&F/16/2000, dated 23-3-2000. The appellants are discharging their Service Tax liability on the amount calculated by them. While calculating the Service Tax liability, the appellant deducted the amount of reimbursements received by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed by them and in the paper-book submitted by them. 6. The learned SDR would submit that these evidences were not submitted before the Adjudicating Authority. 7. On a careful consideration of the entire matter, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has recorded a finding that the appellants have not been able to show what is the exact amount received by them towards EDP expenses which ....