TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Brief facts in the appeal are that the appellant is engaged in providing 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service" to M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., Salem. The allegation against the appellant was that they had not discharged the Service Tax payable amounting to Rs.1,45,294/- on the receipt of service charges for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. As such, the Show Cause Notice No.11/2011 dated 14.08.2011 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem II Division, demanding the above Service Tax along with interest and proposing imposition of penalties. After due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original No. 14/2012 dated 28.09.2012 has confirmed the demand of Service Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teels Ltd. or with the Bank Branch of service receiver as to encashment of the Cheque No. 150315 dated 26.11.2010. 2.4 By impugned order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise was set aside and confirmed the demand of Service Tax along with interest and also imposed penalties of Rs.1,45,294/- and Rs.5,000/- under Section 76 and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, for the reason that the appellant has not produced the Cheque issued to them or any evidence showing that the Cheque was returned to the service provider, though, M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., have confirmed that the Cheque has not been encashed. 3.1 The Ld. Advocate Ms. Lakshmi Meno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts after arriving at this conclusion by placing reliance on the information provided by M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., Salem. The Ld. Advocate prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative Mr. Anoop Singh, Joint Commissioner has appeared and argued for the Department. He has affirmed the findings of the impugned order dated 02.09.2014. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that the Original Adjudicating Authority has not carried out verification as required as to whether the service charges were related to which period, whether the Cheque was encashed or not and the necessary entries made or not in the books of accounts of the service provider and service receiver. 5. Heard both parties and gone ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Rs.14,10,405/- has not been encashed by the appellant. However, M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. have not provided the extract of ledger showing reverse entry / contra entry towards the Cheque not encashed. The appellant has all along contended that they have not received an amount of Rs.14,10,405/- as the Cheque was never encashed by them and their job work contract with M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. was closed by 31.03.2010 and the above consideration for the services rendered pertained to prior periods and not to the period in question. It is also submitted that during the period in question in terms of Rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, Service Tax could be demanded only on receipt of consideration and that there was no consideration received in this c....