2011 (7) TMI 300 - AT - Service Tax

Notification No.1/2006-CE dated 01.03.06 - Assessee providing service solely for rent-a-cab operator scheme service and availing the abatement of 90% instead of 60% -It is clear from their service tax return that they availed the abatement of 90% and it is very clear that they have wrongly availed 30% in excess of 60% as abatement - As per Notification No.1/2006-CE dated 01.03.06 the abatement is allowed only @ 60% - There is also no evidence to support the argument of the appellant that they have claimed abatement of 60% and not 90% - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the value of services provided and abatement availed in service tax returns.
2. Allegation of incorrect figures submitted in ST-3 return leading to a demand of service tax.
3. Applicability of abatement rate and evidence supporting the claim.
4. Rejection of the appeal and disposal of the stay application.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a tour operator engaged in providing taxable services, filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the Order-in-Original. The dispute arose regarding the abatement availed, with the adjudicating authority confirming a demand of service tax of Rs.30,593, representing 30% more than the abatement. The appellant claimed that an error in the ST-3 return led to the incorrect figures submitted to the department, which were not accepted despite a revised return. The appellant also argued the lack of evidence supporting the value of services on which the demand was based, despite payment of service tax and interest.

2. The scrutiny of the service tax return revealed inconsistencies in the amounts declared by the appellant for services provided under the Rent-a-Cab scheme. The appellant's argument that the declared value of services in the return did not match the actual amounts collected was deemed unsustainable. The discrepancy between the figures presented by the appellant and the actual bill and collection statements further weakened their position.

3. The tribunal found that the appellant had wrongly availed 30% excess abatement, claiming 90% instead of the allowable 60%. The absence of evidence supporting the appellant's claim that they had availed only 60% abatement raised doubts on the accuracy of their position. The tribunal emphasized that the abatement rate allowed by Notification No.1/2006-CE was 60%, rejecting the appellant's erroneous assertion regarding the abatement percentage claimed.

4. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, affirming the demand for service tax and disposing of the stay application. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate reporting in tax returns and adherence to prescribed abatement rates to avoid disputes and penalties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the tribunal's decision, ensuring a thorough understanding of the legal aspects and implications of the case.