Commissioner of Goods And Service Tax, Aurangabad Versus M\/s. Konkan Agro Marine Inds. Pvt. Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (4) TMI 72 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 28-2-2018
ST\/ROM-93188\/17, ST\/169\/12 – M\/85213\/2018
Service Tax
Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical)
\nShri Dilip Shinde, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) – for Department
\nNone – for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Raju
\nThis rectification of mistake has been filed by Revenue in respect of order No.A\/89941-89943\/17\/STB dt. 28.9.2017.
\n2. Ld. AR pointed out that there were issues for determination in the said appeal namely:
\n(i) Service tax of Rs. 19,67,300\/- on leasing of license charges for the period from June, 2007 and March, 2010 & <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ts which the appellant have failed to produce before the audit officer. Breakup of the said invoice as follows: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of Goods And Service Tax, Aurangabad Versus M\/s. Konkan Agro Marine Inds. Pvt. Ltd.Service Tax2018 (4) TMI 72 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 28-2-2018ST\/ROM-93188\/17, ST\/169\/12 – M\/85213\/2018Service TaxShri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Dilip Shinde, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) – for Department None – for Respondent ORDER … Continue reading “Commissioner of Goods And Service Tax, Aurangabad Versus M\/s. Konkan Agro Marine Inds. Pvt. Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11251","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11251","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11251"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11251\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. It is seen that the impugned order does not deal with two issues pointed out by Revenue in the ROM. In view of above, the following line of the order:
\n “In view of above, we find merit in the appeal and the same is therefore allowed”
\nmay be replaced with the following.
\n“4. In view of above, we find merit in the appeal so far as it relates to renting of immoveable property and the appeal on the said ground is allowed.
\n4.1 The next ground raised in the appeal relates to non-payment of Rs. 5,91,502\/- of service tax which was allegedly collected by the appellant from the service receiver but not deposited with the Revenue. The appellant had clarified that they had deposited the said amount whereas Revenue while confirming the demand <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n\tSr. No.
\n\tIssue of Dispute
\n\tNo. of entries in SCN
\n\tAmount of credit availed & disputed
\n\t1.
\n\tAvailed on the Xerox Copies
\n\t19
\n\t11,077\/-
\n\t2.
\n\tAvailed on the Invoices not having S.T. Regn. Number
\n\t10
\n\t34,348\/-
\n\t3.
\n\tAvailed on Invoices copies of which are not produced to Audit
\n\t6
\n\t12,919\/-
\n\t
\n\t
\n\tTOTAL
\n\t8,344\/-
\nIn the appeal memorandum the appellant have given compliance of all these objections except for an amount of Rs. 3,769\/-which has been reversed by them. Since the compliance has been made by the appellant the impugned order in so far it relates to the demand of reversal of cenvat credit and imposit<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n