2009 (7) TMI 554 - AT - Service Tax

Security Agency s services- manpower supply- The appellants are engaged in providing Security Services for which they are registered with the Service Tax Department. The Revenue after scrutinizing their balance sheet entertained a view that the value of the services was much more than the value reflected in the quarterly ST-3 returns. The appellants explained that apart from being engaged in the Security Services, they are also doing business of manpower supply, which was not liable to tax before 16-6-2005. As such, they contended that the excess income reflected in the balance sheet is on account of the above activity and is not relatable to the activity of security services. Held that- remand back the matter to the Assistant Commissioner after taking note of the order passed by additional commissioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit of balance amount of duty, interest, and penalties.
2. Discrepancy in the value of services reflected in balance sheet and ST-3 returns.
3. Denial of appellant's explanation regarding excess income.
4. Comparison with similar proceedings for a different period.
5. Remand for fresh adjudication based on Additional Commissioner's order.

Issue 1: Pre-deposit of balance amount
The appellants had already deposited a partial amount towards service tax and interest. The tribunal dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalties, allowing the appeal to proceed without full pre-deposit.

Issue 2: Discrepancy in value of services
The Revenue, after scrutinizing the appellant's balance sheet, contended that the value of services provided was higher than what was reflected in the quarterly ST-3 returns. The appellants argued that the excess income was due to their business of manpower supply, which was not taxable during the relevant period. However, this explanation was denied by the authorities, leading to the demand being confirmed along with interest and penalties.

Issue 3: Denial of appellant's explanation
The authorities rejected the appellant's explanation regarding the excess income being related to their manpower supply activities. Despite the appellant's contentions, the demand was upheld, and penalties were imposed.

Issue 4: Comparison with similar proceedings
The appellant's chartered accountant highlighted that similar proceedings for a different period had been adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, who found that the excess income was indeed from manpower supply activities. As the order dropping the demand for the subsequent period had not been appealed against by the Revenue, the appellant argued that the present appeal should also be allowed.

Issue 5: Remand for fresh adjudication
Considering the findings of the Additional Commissioner in the subsequent period's proceedings, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to consider the order of 5-3-2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, which dropped the demand, and to verify the documents provided by the appellants. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was disposed of.

This judgment addresses various issues related to the discrepancy in the value of services, denial of appellant's explanation, comparison with similar proceedings, and the remand for fresh adjudication based on the findings of the Additional Commissioner in a different period's proceedings. The tribunal allowed the appeal to proceed without full pre-deposit and directed a reevaluation of the case by the Assistant Commissioner in light of the Additional Commissioner's decision.