9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 837 - AT - Service TaxLiability of service tax - commercial construction service/works contract service (labour charge) paid to the subcontractors - HELD THAT - The appellant claimed to have paid Service Tax on the disputed amount during the personal hearing made before the adjudicating authority but failed to substantiate the same with documentary evidence. It is also apparently clear that appellant s only claim was that the amount in which Service Tax has been demanded for providing manpower supply services was received by the appellant and not paid to the sub-contractors. Appellant had therefore not complied with Rule 2A(1b)(i) (ii) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, Section 77 and sub-clause zzzza of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as tax liability on reverse charge mechanism applicable to manpower supply service and avoided to make payment of Service Tax for which it failed to produce documents concerning payment of tax. There is no irregularity or illegality can be noticed in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that would require interference by this Tribunal - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Confirmation of Order-in-Original by Commissioner (Appeals) on Service Tax liability of labor charges; Failure to discharge Service Tax liability; Adjudication by Assistant Commissioner; Appeal before Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai; Lack of documentary evidence for payment of Service Tax; Non-compliance with Service Tax rules and regulations. Analysis: The judgment concerns the confirmation of the Order-in-Original by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the Service Tax liability of labor charges amounting to ?2,83,271, along with interest and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant failed to discharge the Service Tax liability on commercial construction service/works contract service paid to subcontractors during the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the duty demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant's unsuccessful attempt before the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise led to the dispute being brought before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai. During the proceedings, the appellant did not appear, but a written submission was made, lacking clarity on the raised issues. The appellant claimed to have paid the Service Tax during a personal hearing but failed to provide documentary evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal observed discrepancies between the ledgers and ST-3 returns, leading to the conclusion that the Service Tax on labor charges was not paid, warranting recovery with interest and penalties. The appellant's defense centered on the receipt of the amount for providing manpower supply services but not paying subcontractors, thereby failing to comply with relevant Service Tax rules and regulations. The Authorized Representative for the respondent-department supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, highlighting the appellant's failure to provide documentary proof of tax payment despite multiple requests and summons. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise. The judgment emphasized the appellant's non-compliance with Service Tax rules and the lack of evidence to support the claimed tax payments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the confirmation of the original order.
|
