2019 (2) TMI 385 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - appellant had received commissions from one M/s KBC Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd., Nasik for selling the various products like, Magnetic Pendant, Magnetic Bracelet, Holiday Packages etc. - whether the appellants are liable to discharge Service Tax for receiving the commission during the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 from M/s KBC Multi Trades Pvt. Ltd.? Held that - Before this forum, the appellant, though claimed that they have received lesser amount, no evidence has been placed to substantiate the said claim except bank statement of some account - there is no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Determining liability for Service Tax on commissions received from M/s KBC Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. during 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Nasik, confirming a demand for Service Tax amounting to ?2,14,817 for 2012-13 and 2013-14. The appellant received commissions from M/s KBC Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. for selling various products but failed to discharge the Service Tax. The appellant claimed that they received lesser amounts than shown in the 26AS statement due to TDS deductions by M/s KBC Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. The appellant argued that they fell below the threshold exemption limit of ?10.00 lakhs prescribed under Notification No. 33/12-ST, hence no Service Tax liability should accrue. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this claim due to lack of evidence and because the claim was not raised before the adjudicating authority.

The Revenue contended that the appellant accepted liability before the adjudicating authority and requested leniency on penalty but did not provide a reply to the show-cause notice. The Revenue argued that the appellant did not substantiate their claim of receiving lesser amounts despite TDS deductions. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority based on the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim.

The Tribunal found that the main issue was whether the appellants were liable to pay Service Tax on commissions received during 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Revenue confirmed the demand based on the 26AS statement showing higher amounts received by the appellant. The appellant's argument that they received lesser amounts below the exemption limit was rejected by the Tribunal due to insufficient evidence. Despite the appellant's claim of receiving lesser amounts, no substantial evidence was presented except for some bank statements. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.