9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Appellant : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR Appeared for Respondent : Shri V. Kakaria, Advocate Per Mathew John: The Appellant is in the business of canvassing advertisements for newspapers and they get commission for such business. They were registered under The Service Tax Rules ,1997 for payment of service tax as an advertising agency. The Revenue received specific information that the Appellant was suppressing the value of services rendered by the Appellant. So they conducted some investigations including a search at the premises of the Appellant. Based on evidences gathered an SCN was issued to the Appellant which was adjudicated vide order dated 06-03-07. The operative part of the order is reproduced below:- 1. I confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person desiring to advertise. Such activity does not fall within the ambit of taxable service; (b) The adjudicating officer has assumed that the payment of Rs. 1,32,24,390.86 shown in the balance sheet relates to commission/discount/incentive whereas this figure includes commission earned on other media activity which is not taxable. 4. Commissioner (Appeal) decided the matter by his order dated 18-09-2007. The operative part of the order is re-produced below:- The appellant have submitted certificates dated 18.6.2007 and 3.7.2007 issued by Rampaul Associates, Chartered Accountants, # 189 Sector 40-A, Chandigarh who have certified that an amount of Rs.6,63,048/- as detailed above has been deposited as service tax by M/s Arpit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority are set aside being not sustainable. 5. This order of Commissioner Appeals has been reviewed under section ---------of the -------------by the Committee of Commissioners and as directed by the Committee this Appeal is filed. 6. The ground for Appeal as recorded in the Order-in-review are as under:- (i) Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in relying upon the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant without verifying the facts. This certificate (enclosed as Annexure A ) is ab-initio void as the figures in column 3 which relates to outstanding amount pending recovery due to legal cases pending in the Courts is the gross amount inclusive of Service Tax and no Commission which actually comes to Rs.1,07,406/-. Whereas, the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Eltech Enterprises reported as 1999 (112) ELT 877 (Tribunal) and Collector of Central Excise, Meeurt Vs. Moon Beverages Pvt. Ltd. reported as 1999 (111) EKT 712 (Tribunal). These cases also affirm that Chartered Accountant s certificate needs complete verification, when elements of mens rea have also been established by circumstantial evidences. In this case the gravity of need of verification is further highlighted: (v) Commissioner (Appeals) has again committed an error of judgment by adjudging that party was not having intention to evade. It is explicit from the facts and circumstances of the case that party was suppressing taxable value by resorting to colourful devices like Barter Agreement with M/s Kinet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
