2024 (2) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NICAL) Smt. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri J. Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Order : [ Per Shri Ashok Jindal ] In both the appeals, the issue is common and therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in various types of services namely, erection, commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....During the course of adjudication, CENVAT Credit was also denied to the appellant, alleging that there is a difference in the payment document and the invoice document. Moreover, it was also alleged that in some of the invoices, there were some technical errors. With respect to export of service, Service Tax has been demanded alleging that their services were not provided outside India and consume....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the CENVAT Credit availed by them was sought to be denied alleging that there is a difference in the figures of payment through banking channel and the invoices whereas it is the contention of the appellant that they are required to deduct TDS and other deductions from the invoices for payment against the said invoices. 5.2 With regard to the demand of Service Tax on export of service, it is t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the respondent supported the impugned order. 7. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 8. We find that in this case, the appellant has raised various issues in reply to the Show Cause Notices issued to them, on merits as well as on limitation and the same have been argued before this Tribunal also. However, the ld. adjudicating auth....