2014 (2) TMI 1085 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of differential duty - Discrepancy in annual financial statements and ST-3 Returns - Suppression of value of services rendered - Held that - Prima facie, it appears that the applicant was providing only security services and no proof of supply of man-power supply has been produced at lower levels and some feeble evidences have been produced before Tribunal as a fresh evidence - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Reconciliation of financial statements for service tax, suspicion of suppression of service value, recovery of short-paid service tax, confirmation of service tax demand, provision of security services, supply of man-power, erroneous service tax demand, appropriating deposit, verification of invoices, absence of registration for man-power supply service, lack of evidence for man-power supply service.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved the issue of reconciliation of financial statements for service tax purposes. The Revenue suspected suppression of the value of services rendered by the applicant, leading to proceedings for the recovery of short-paid service tax. A show-cause notice was issued, resulting in the confirmation of an amount against the applicant for a specific period.

The applicant in this case was providing security services and supplying manpower to institutions like M/s. Achariya Group of Institution. The applicant argued that the service tax demand was confirmed erroneously as the manpower supplied was not providing security services, thus exempt from service tax. The appellant had made a deposit, which was appropriated in the order.

The Revenue, opposing the applicant's claim, argued that the invoices submitted during adjudication were only for services rendered to M/s. Achariya Group of Institution, which confirmed that the services were related to security services only. The Revenue highlighted the lack of registration for manpower supply service by the applicant and the absence of evidence showing the provision of any service other than security services.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that there was no concrete proof of the supply of manpower services by the applicant. The Tribunal did not direct the applicant to make a further pre-deposit, acknowledging the lack of evidence for manpower supply services. The Tribunal granted relief to the applicant by waiving the pre-deposit of the balance dues and staying the recovery during the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the discrepancy in financial statements, the suspicion of suppressed service value, and the erroneous confirmation of service tax demand. It highlighted the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims and the significance of proper registration for specific services under the service tax law. The Tribunal's decision to waive the pre-deposit and stay the recovery demonstrated a fair consideration of the evidence presented during the proceedings.