Sify Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 486 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 9-4-2018
Application No. ST\/Misc\/CT\/41711\/2017 & Appeal No. ST\/759\/2010 – Final Order No. 41084 \/ 2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri G. Natarajan, Advocate For the Appellant
\nShri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe MA filed by Revenue for change of cause title is allowed.
\n2. The facts of the case are that appellants are providing various taxable services such as internet cafe service, leased circuit service, franchise service etc. Scrutiny of ST-3 returns and records maintained by the appellants indicated that they had not discharged service tax liability in full for the period October 2005 to March 2006. The main allegation was that service tax paid by the tax payer as shown in th<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 7.09.2010 (impugned order), the Commissioner has confirmed the same demand of Rs. 1,86,23,677\/- with interest and imposed same penalty of Rs. 2 Crores under Section 78 ibid. Hence this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ave emanated only due to the misreading of the ST-3 returns filed by the appellants, there is no justification for imposition of penalty. 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy draws our attention to para-15 of the impugned order to point out that appellants vide their letter dt. 7.7.2010 had given figures which were different from those furnished vide their letter dt. 29.05.2007 in the first round of adjudication. Further, the adjudicating authority has observed that even comparison of figures furnished in the second round of adjudication reveals that there are still differences. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d on 18.10.06. The Commissioner came to pass the impugned demand as the above exercise was avoided. The Commissioner found variations between the figures furnished along with the reply to the Show Cause Notice and those furnished in the ST-3 returns. However, the demand was raised ignoring one class of variations. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sify Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, ChennaiService Tax2018 (5) TMI 486 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 9-4-2018Application No. ST\/Misc\/CT\/41711\/2017 & Appeal No. ST\/759\/2010 – Final Order No. 41084 \/ 2018Service TaxHon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri G. Natarajan, … Continue reading “Sify Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai”<\/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-11694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11694","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=11694"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11694\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri G. Natarajan submits that in de novo adjudication, appellants had furnished voluminous data, which has been taken cognizance of in the impugned order too. However, without examining the correctness of the data furnished by the appellants, the Commissioner has compared the data furnished before him in de novo proceedings, to those furnished in the first round and observed certain differences, based on which he has discredited the entire information furnished by the appellants. Ld. Counsel also contends that department has not proved that the appellants had received higher taxable value than what was declared in the ST-3 returns. He submits that the demand has resulted only due to misunderstanding of the n<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Heard both sides. From the impugned order, it is clear that the adjudicating authority has primarily focused on comparing the figures given by the appellants in the first and second round of adjudication. In the first round of litigation, CESTAT Chennai had clearly indicated that the adjudicating authority came to pass the impugned demand as the proper reconciliation exercise was avoided.<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the whole issue arose on account of certain errors in reporting which could be reconciled; the appellant was willing to do such reconciliation. He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remanded for full scale reconciliation.
\n 6. The learned Jt. CDR broadly agrees with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. He has no objection to the matter being remanded.
\n 7. On a careful consideration of the case records and the submissions made by both sides we are convinced that the ends of justice require that the impugned order be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adju<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n