2014 (1) TMI 1835 - AT - Service Tax

Security agency service - penalty - Held that - the conclusion by the primary authority as confirmed by the Appellate authority, that the appellant had provided security agency service is seen to be correct. The appellant was subsequently registered for providing security agency service and had also reflected in its accounts that the consideration received was for providing security agency service during the relevant period - penalties also upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Service tax demand confirmation, Appeal rejection, Classification of service, Burden of proof, Imposition of penalties.

Service tax demand confirmation: The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 2,59,116/- along with interest and penalties. The appellant appealed against this order, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant had obtained registration for providing 'security agency' service, and a search revealed that they had received a considerable amount for providing this service.

Classification of service: The appellant contended that they did not provide security agency service but introduced workers to service recipients. They argued they were not a Manpower Recruitment Agency and were unaware of any liability to service tax. They also claimed that certain amounts should be excluded from the taxable value. However, the authorities found no evidence to support the appellant's contentions and concluded that they had indeed provided security agency service.

Burden of proof: The appellant failed to provide any material or evidence to support their claim of providing a different service than what was suggested by the Revenue. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the alternative classification of the service, which they failed to do.

Imposition of penalties: The appellant argued that the imposition of penalties was harsh and arbitrary. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's liability to service tax was clear, and their failure to file returns or remit service tax was willful. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties, finding no justification for interference.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without costs, as it found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the decision regarding service tax demand confirmation, classification of service, burden of proof, and imposition of penalties.