2018 (11) TMI 527 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of abatement denied - GTA Service under reverse charge mechanism - abatement denied on the ground that respondent did not submit documents establishing non-availment of Cenvat Credit by the service providers - Held that - It could not emerge from the record of the appeal that during the relevant period, respondent had paid Service Tax of ₹ 13,76,166/- under Reverse Charge for GTA Service - during the relevant period covered by the appeal, Appellant paid Service Tax of ₹ 10,692/-. There is no basis for the demand of Service Tax of ₹ 38,90,241/ - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of 75% abatement from taxable value due to non-submission of documents establishing non-availment of Cenvat Credit by service providers.
2. Discrepancy in the amount of Service Tax paid by the respondent.
3. Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal by the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute where the Revenue contended that the respondent did not submit documents proving non-availment of Cenvat Credit by service providers, leading to a demand for payment of short Service Tax. The Revenue claimed that the respondent should have paid &8377; 38,90,141/- instead of the &8377; 10,692/- paid by them. The lower appellate authority accepted the respondent's argument that they had only paid &8377; 10,692/- and set aside the demand. Upon review, the Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent had paid the higher amount, concluding that the demand was unfounded. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Order-in-Appeal.

2. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence in the record to support the Revenue's claim that the respondent had paid &8377; 13,76,166/- as Service Tax under Reverse Charge for Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's assertion that they had only paid &8377; 10,692/- during the relevant period. This discrepancy in the amount paid by the respondent was crucial in determining the outcome of the case, as it directly impacted the demand for additional Service Tax.

3. The appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal was centered on the disagreement regarding the amount of Service Tax paid by the respondent and the denial of 75% abatement from the taxable value. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the evidence presented and concluded that there was no justification for the demand of &8377; 38,90,141/-. By dismissing the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal affirmed the lower appellate authority's decision, highlighting the importance of accurate documentation and payment records in tax disputes to support claims and counterclaims effectively.