Page 136 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

222 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
8. In these circumstances, I do not find any merits in the impugned or-
der the same is set aside. In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential re-
lief.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 222 (Tri. - Mumbai)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
[COURT NO. I]
Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J)
S.S. CONSTRUCTION
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD
Final Order No. A/86069/2019-WZB, dated 4-6-2019 in Appeal No. ST/88654/2018
Demand - Short-levy - Difference in figures of ST-3 returns and Bal-
ance Sheet - Reconciliation thereof - In first round of litigation, matter was
remanded to adjudicating authority for re-adjudication of case on assessee fil-
ing a reconciliation statement duly certified by CA - In re-adjudication pro-
ceedings, said statement filed by assessee has been rejected on the ground that
same is not accompanied by supporting documents - Since supporting docu-
ments were already earlier submitted by assessee on basis of which initial
SCN was issued, rejection of this statement in re-adjudication not sustainable -
In view of aforesaid, reconciliation statement accepted and demand set aside -
Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 6, 7, 8]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri C.S. Biradar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri S.B. Mane, Authorized Representative, for the
Respondent.
[Order].- This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.
MKK/684/RGD APP/2017 dated 31-3-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Cen-
tral Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raigad.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant during the
relevant period from 2006-07 to 2008-09, rendered taxable services under the cat-
egory of ‘commercial and industrial construction service’, ‘manpower recruit-
ment and supply service’, etc. On comparison of the balance sheet with that of
their ST-3 Returns, it was found that the appellant had short paid Service Tax.
Accordingly, demand notice was issued to recover an amount of Rs. 5,23,132/-
with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with in-
terest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the
Learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Thereafter,
they approached this Tribunal against the order of the Learned Commissioner
(Appeals), and this Tribunal vide order dated 20-9-2012, remanded the matter to
the adjudicating authority for reconciliation of the figures in the balance-sheet

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  136