2016 (2) TMI 367 - AT - Service Tax

Security Agency Service - appellant submitted that demand was raised merely on the amount as shown in the ledger account, without taking into consideration the actual receipt. - reimbursement expenses including salaries and other expenses - Held that - The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the documents and the submissions of the Appellant. In this context, the learned Advocate undertakes to appear before the Adjudicating authority to submit the documents and appear before the Adjudicating authority within two months from the date of receipt of this order. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Demand of Service Tax for the period 1999-2004 based on undisclosed amounts collected by the Appellant.
2. Dispute regarding the determination of taxable value by the Revenue authorities.
3. Appellant's contention of not collecting the amount from clients and ongoing arbitration proceedings with a client.
4. Inclusion of reimbursement expenses in the taxable value for Security Agency service.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a demand of Service Tax against the Appellant for the period 1999-2004, where the Central Excise officers found that the Appellant collected amounts from clients but did not declare them in the ST-3 return. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing a demand of Service Tax along with interest and penalties. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Appellant's Advocate argued that the demand was solely based on ledger accounts without considering actual receipts. He highlighted that TDS deductions were the only consideration for determining taxable value, while salaries, EPF contributions, and other expenses were not excluded. The Advocate also mentioned that the Appellant had paid a significant sum against the demand and disputed the findings of the lower authorities regarding amount realization.

3. The Revenue's Authorized Representative opposed the Advocate's submission, stating that the duty liability was rightly determined based on ledger amounts. He emphasized that arbitration proceedings with a client were irrelevant to the Service Tax demand.

4. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant, a proprietorship firm, disputed collecting amounts from clients and stated that the outstanding amounts were yet to be recovered. The Advocate referred to ongoing arbitration with a client and argued that worker payments should not be included in the gross value. Citing relevant Tribunal decisions, the Advocate sought a fair consideration of the case.

5. The Tribunal observed that reimbursement expenses, including salaries, were incorrectly included in the taxable value, contrary to the law and Tribunal decisions. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after considering the Appellant's submissions and documents. The Advocate agreed to appear before the Adjudicating authority within two months. Failure to do so would lead to the Adjudicating authority passing an order without further opportunity. The Tribunal clarified that the order was a remand without expressing any view on the case's merits, thereby allowing the appeal for remand.