2013 (4) TMI 495 - AT - Service Tax

Architect s service - short payment of service tax - the only ground taken by the appellant is availability of receipts in respect of ammonia printing charges, model making charges and perspective drawing now at this stage of appeal - Held that - Appellant did not produce these receipts before any of lower authority though these receipts were issued by them only and there cannot be any reason for not producing the same before lower authority. Thus these receipts are not supported by any other documents like invoices. Under Section 67 or the Finance Act, 1994 service tax is to be paid on gross value of service provided. Appellant has received these charges from service recipient and therefore liable to pay service tax on these charges. Against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant correctly paid service tax on Architect's services.
2. Whether the activities of ammonia printing charges, model making charges, and perspective drawings charges are separate from Architect's service.
3. Whether the receipts submitted by the appellant are valid evidence to support their case.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a provider of Architect's service, paid service tax only on professional charges instead of the gross value of the services received. A Show Cause Notice was issued for the short payment of service tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand for specific charges, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal) and subsequently before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the activities of ammonia printing charges, model making charges, and perspective drawings charges were separate from Architect's service as defined under section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. They contended that the lower authorities confirmed the demand due to non-production of evidence. The appellant submitted receipts as evidence during the appeal, claiming that these activities were not covered under Architect's service.

3. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to provide evidence before the lower authorities to establish the separation of the mentioned activities from Architect's service. They argued that the receipts submitted were an afterthought, lacking support from invoices detailing the services provided. The Revenue emphasized that service tax should be paid on the gross value of services under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. The Tribunal noted that the only ground raised by the appellant was the availability of receipts for the specific charges in question. It was observed that the appellant did not present these receipts before the lower authorities, despite being issued by them. The Tribunal found that the receipts lacked support from other documents like invoices, which are crucial for determining the nature of services provided. As the appellant received these charges from service recipients, they were deemed liable to pay service tax on the gross value of the services. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Appeal and dismissed the appellant's appeal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning in deciding the case.