9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.1998 to 30.9.2002. Both the respondents were further issued another show cause notice each for the period 1.10.2002 to 31.3.2003. In brief, investigation showed that the respondents were issuing invoices covering security services and some invoices covering labour services. In respect of invoices relating to security services, most of such invoices showed that service tax amount was charged and collected. However, in respect of some of the invoices, though the services were mentioned as security services but no service tax was charged. In respect of remaining invoices, supply of labour was indicated as the service and no service tax was collected. It was also found that service tax deposited with the department was only few percent of the service tax actually collected (i.e. in respect of the invoices, service tax was shown to be charged and collected). In respect of first respondent, amount deposited was Rs.3,29,513/- as against the charged and collected amount of Rs.15,64,272/-. Similarly in respect of second respondent, service tax paid was Rs.28,907/- as against service tax collected Rs.7,39,696/-. During investigation, in addition, following were observed:- &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n amounts which have become bad debt and service tax is liable to be paid only on the amount actually received and they are not required to pay service tax on the said amount. Respondent No.1, M/s. Globe Pvt. Detective Bureau, claimed that after giving reductions as above, their service tax liability will be only Rs.7,45,599/- and they had already paid Rs.3,29,513/- and another Rs. 2 lakhs was paid during investigation of the case and the balance amount payable is only Rs.2,16,086/-. Similar pleas were taken by respondent No. 2. These pleas were not accepted by the original authority and entire demand along with penalties was confirmed. 4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the original adjudicating authority, both the respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), which were dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order. The respondents filed appeals before this Tribunal which remanded the cases to the Commissioner (Appeals) and gave certain directions to deposit certain amounts. The said amounts were deposited and thereafter the impugned orders were passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned orders has accepted the pleas of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.3 The learned AR also submitted that in the order-in-appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the deductive method and has given deductions from the total value of services to labour charges, dues collection charges, benefit of Notification No. 56/98 for security of movable property/cash management and service charges not realised. Learned AR submitted that the respondents have inflated and wrongly submitted the various charges before the Commissioner (Appeals) which have been accepted by him. It is important to note the various figures under these heads reported by the respondents during OIO and OIA. Head Original Authority First Appellate Authority Labour Services 29,39,754 2,08,99,109 Dues Collection Charges 1,31,92,808 12,49,757 Security of Movable Property 1,22,92,100 64,02,945 Service charges not realised 16,78,032 17,24,899 Thus, it is seen that there is wide variation between the figures submitted before the adjudicating authority and those submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, these figures have been provided as an afterthought and are unsubstantiated and no benefit can be extended to the respondents on the basis of such figures. This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.14,01,318/- in respect of Globe Pvt. Detective Bureau and Rs.6,27,884/- in respect of Matsa Security Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. 7. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and various submissions made both by the appellants as also the respondents. We have also gone through the show cause notices, order-in-original and the order of the first appellate authority. At the outset, we observe that the show cause notice is based upon invoices issued by the respondents. These invoices have been tabulated number wise, date wise, year wise and thereafter a summary has also been prescribed under Annexure B. We find that the respondents have not questioned any details given in respect of various invoices and details of Annexure B. We also observe that instead of explaining invoice-wise details, the respondents have chosen to give certain figures year wise or consolidated for all the years. We also observe from para 5.2 above that the quantums given before original authority and first appellate authority varies widely. Thus the figures given by the respondents do not appear to inspire any confidence. In any case, service tax is collected invoice-wise and is required to be deposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays from the receipt of the order. The respondents area also directed to calculate and deposit the interest on the delayed payment of service tax and also penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act for the said amount within 60 (sixty) days from the receipt of the order. 9. Now, coming to certain invoices which are detailed in Annexure B under the category of security services, but wherein the respondents have not collected any service tax, the respondents may indicate invoice-wise details of the actual nature of security services provided by them in respect of each invoice and also the copy of supporting agreement/contract with their client. The original authority will thereafter examine the respondents' claim in respect of each invoice whether the same is covered by Notification 56/98-ST or not. Wherever claim is found to be correct, Revenue will extend the benefit in the total amount demanded. Needless to say that decision will be taken after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents. 10. As far as invoices relating to labour services are concerned, we find considerable force in the argument of the learned AR that during 1998-99, the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity thereafter. 11. In respect of demand for the period October 2002 to March 2003, similar exercise may be carried out in respect of invoices where service tax has not been charged or collected. 12. In respect of Matsa Security Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.2, similar process would be followed by the respondents as also the appellants and within the time limits mentioned earlier. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases and described earlier, we have no hesitation in holding that extended period of limitation is applicable in this case and penalties both under Sections 76 and 78 are imposable. Penalty under Section 77 is also imposable. 14. We may like to mention that the Commissioner (Appeals) has fallen into error in taking certain figures (year wise or consolidated for the total period) instead of examining invoice wise/transaction wise details. In somewhat similar circumstances (though relating to central sales-tax) in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and another reported in 1970 (1) SCC 622, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
