9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR for the Revenue. [Order Per: Mr.B.S.V. Murthy]. - Service Tax of Rs.20,818/- and interest thereon has been demanded from the appellant on the ground that the appellant provided security services during the year 2003-2004. Penalties have also been imposed under various Sections of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellant submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge is 5% or 10% and is not equal to 8% shows that the amount collected is not service tax at all. As regards 3rd ground the appellant did not specify the service, but has been collected an amount of Rs.2,60,231/- for the service rendered. This is the amount on which the service tax is demanded by the department. He submits that while he can say that this was not security service, he was not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show what is the nature of service. When the service tax is being demanded is on security agency service, it is the responsibility of the department to show that the appellant did render this service. When the invoice does not show details; some of the receivers could have been contacted and details obtained as to the nature of service received by them. No investigation whatsoever has been conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider that the appellant has made out a case that the service provided by them was not security agency service. In the absence of any investigation done by the department and in view of the evidence provided by the appellant, I find that the demand of service tax made against the appellant cannot be justified. Naturally, no penalty could have been imposed. 4. In view of the above discussion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
