Namtel Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST, CE & CC. Bhopal
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 373 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 4-12-2018
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/53071/2018-ST [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 53415/2018
Service Tax
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Mr. Pradeep Mutreja, CA
Present for the Respondent: Ms. Tamanna Alam, D.R.
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
The appellant herein is engaged in providing taxable services as that of errection, commissioning and installation services and the works contract service. During the scrutiny of ST-3 Return of the appellants for the period July, 2012 to March, 2014, the Department observed a short payment of tax on the total value as declared by the appellant. Resultantly, vide show cause notice bearing No.7769 dated 25.09.2014, service tax amounting to Rs. 19,90,256/- allegedly short paid for the above mentioned period was proposed to be recovered alongwith the cenvat credit a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t-coming occurred due to the error committed on account of the failure of the software but was not at all intentional on part of the appellant. It is submitted that the ST-3 Returns were timely been filed (half yearly returns) reflecting all the details as that of showing the details of opening balance, taxable value, tax paid and the availment and utilization of credit. In addition, at the time of personal hearing, the calculation chart alongwith those returns were provided to the Department. However, the Adjudicating authority below have not considered the same It is finally impressed upon that while undoing the software issue at their own level, the appellant noticed a short payment of Rs. 56,070/- which was also paid by him vide challan dated 5th October, 2013. The order under challenge is therefore prayed to be set aside.
4. While rebutting these arguments, ld. A.R. has submitted that no document was provided by the appellant before the adjudicating authorities below, despite tha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pparent denial of rebutting the failure in the software of the appellant as is mentioned by them.
6. The perusal of order under challenge reflects that the demand as proposed in show cause notice has been confirmed only for want of the documents/ documentary proof and on the presumption that had there been error in filing ST 3 returns as per the plea of the appellant, the same would have been reflected online itself. However, the perusal of record even the order under challenge shows that the documents not only in the form of ST 3 returns but the calculation chart as well were produced before the adjudicating authorities below. These returns include the half yearly returns for the financial years under question. Perusal of these returns shows that the opening balance for the first half yearly return is same as that of second half yearly return. This perusal is sufficient to hold that the software has not appropriately picked up the value of opening balance. This perusal also makes it
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =