M\/s Mamta Textiles Versus Commissioner, Customs, GST & Central Excise, Lucknow
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 812 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 11-7-2018
APPEAL No. ST\/70385\/2018-ST[SM] – A\/71530\/2018-SM[BR]
Service Tax
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Shambu Chopra for Appellant
\nShri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Asst. Commr. (AR), for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Archana Wadhwa
\nAfter rejecting the request for adjournment made by learned Advocate Shri Shambu chopra as his Vakalatnama is not on record and the appeal stands filed by the earlier advocate, whose No Objection certificate has not been produced, I proceed to decide the appeal itself.
\n2. Heard learned AR and have gone through the im<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n r passed by Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand along with interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1984. In addition penalty of Rs. 10,000\/- was also imposed under Section 77. The said order of Original Adjudicating Authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e that the payment which has been received by the appellant in one particular period was on account of the services belonging to the previous financial year. In such a scenario, the appellant's stand has to be verified correctly from their books of account and should be matched properly. As the said exercise can be done only at the level of Original Adjudicating Authority, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after verification of asseess's claim from the record maintained by them. The issue of penal liability is kept open for the appellant to be addressed before the Original Adjudicating Authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Mamta Textiles Versus Commissioner, Customs, GST & Central Excise, LucknowService Tax2018 (8) TMI 812 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 11-7-2018APPEAL No. ST\/70385\/2018-ST[SM] – A\/71530\/2018-SM[BR]Service TaxMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Shambu Chopra for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Asst. Commr. (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa After rejecting the request … Continue reading “M\/s Mamta Textiles Versus Commissioner, Customs, GST & Central Excise, Lucknow”<\/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-13243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13243","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=13243"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13243\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. On going through the impugned order I find that the appellants had taken a categorical stand before the authorities below that their books of account were being maintained on mercantile\/accrual basis, as and when the commission was received by them. The commission accrued in one particular year is not received actually on that year and stands reflected in the ST-3 returns of the subsequent <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n8. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
\n(Dictated in Court)
Case<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n