2018 (10) TMI 1067 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of differential duty paid - disclosure of incorrect gross receipts in the returns - no evidence produced by appellant in rebutting the allegations - Held that - The appellants were neither serious in prosecuting their case before the authorities below nor before this Tribunal by producing evidences to rebut the allegation of the department of excess receipt of the taxable value as were shown in the respective balance sheets of the financial year 2007-08 and 2008-09 in comparison to the ST-3 Returns - impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against service tax demand, non-appearance of appellant during proceedings, discrepancy in disclosed gross receipts, lack of evidence to rebut allegations.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, confirming a demand notice issued to the appellants for short payment of service tax amounting to ?37,85,549 during 2007-08 and 2008-09. The appellants failed to respond adequately during the adjudication process, leading to the confirmation of the demand along with interest and penalty. The appeal was made to challenge this decision (Para 2).

During the proceedings, the appellant's representative withdrew their Vakalatnama citing non-receipt of instructions from the appellant, leading to an adjournment. However, on the subsequent date, neither the appellant nor their representative appeared, and no request for adjournment was made. The Revenue's representative opposed further adjournment, highlighting the delay caused by the appellant's inaction (Para 3-4).

The Revenue argued that the appellant did not respond to the show cause notice or attend personal hearings before the adjudicating authority. The department alleged that the gross receipts disclosed in the balance sheets did not match the amounts in the service tax returns for the relevant years. Despite this, the appellant failed to provide evidence to refute these claims or explain the discrepancies. The Tribunal found the appellant's lack of seriousness in presenting their case and dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower authorities' decisions (Para 5-6).

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order due to the appellant's failure to provide evidence to counter the department's allegations regarding the discrepancy in disclosed gross receipts. The lack of substantiation and seriousness in presenting their case led to the dismissal of the appeal.