Page 137 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] S.S. CONSTRUCTION v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD 223
with that of ST-3 Returns. On reconciliation, both the authorities below con-
firmed the demand issued earlier with interest and penalty. Hence, the present
appeal.
3. Learned Advocate Shri C.S. Biradar for the appellant submits that in
the first round of litigation before the original authority, they have submitted the
ledger, balance-sheet, bills, statements etc. in support of their claim that the
amount reflected in the balance-sheet is the gross amount and the amount shown
in ST-3 returns were the amount actually received against the service provided.
After remand by this Tribunal, they have placed C.A. certificate dated 18-12-2013
before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim that the amount re-
flected in the balance-sheet is the gross amount and the amount reflected in the
ST-3 returns is actual amount on which the Service Tax was required to be paid
by them. It is his contention that the adjudicating authority rejected the C.A. cer-
tificate on the ground that the supporting documents like, ledger, invoice, bills
etc. have not been produced. He submits that since all the documents were
placed earlier on the basis of which the show-cause notice dated 17-3-2010 and
11-5-2010 were issued, therefore, rejection of the C.A. certificate by the authori-
ties below is bad in law.
4. Per contra, Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the
Learned Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. I find that in the first round of litigation, this Tribunal while remand-
ing the matter to the adjudicating authority, has observed as follows :-
“5.2 Accordingly, we direct the appellant to submit the reconciliation
statement on the difference between the balance-sheet figures and ST-3 re-
turn figures duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. On such submission,
the adjudicating authority shall consider the matter afresh and pass the or-
der in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the ap-
pellant to present their case.”
7. Pursuant to the said direction, since the appellant had already earlier
submitted the detail of profit and loss account, ledger, invoices, bills etc., they
had placed the C.A. certificate in support of their claim for reconciliation of the
figures between ST-3 returns and the balance-sheet. The authorities below reject-
ed the C.A. certificate on the ground that the supporting documents were not
enclosed along with the certificate. I do not find justification in the findings of the
authorities below inasmuch as all the documents have been submitted by the
appellant, the basis on which show cause notice was issued to the appellant
which is evident from the show cause notice itself. In these circumstances, rejec-
tion of the C.A. certificate for want of supporting documents, in my opinion,
cannot be sustained.
8. In the result, since the appellant is able to reconcile the differential
figures between ST-3 returns and the balance-sheet supported by the C.A. certifi-
cate, therefore, the impugned order is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the im-
pugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if
any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

_______

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  137