9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 1944. 3. On scrutiny of their records for the period from July, 94 to March, 98 during the course of audit, it was observed that the appellant had shown the value of Taxable Services amounting to Rs. 14,05,98,249/- in their quarterly returns (except GPA Premium) instead of Rs. 15,29,41,258/-actually collected by them. It was, therefore, alleged that the appellants had paid short service tax amounting to Rs. 6,17,167/-. Accordingly a SCN was issued to the appellant asking them to explain as to why Service tax amounting to Rs. 6,17,167/- alongwith interest @ 1.5% per month should not be recovered from them and why penalty should not be imposed. In the SCN it was also alleged that the appellants had concealed material facts by not showi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1995-96 : That during the year 1995-96, on the premium amount of Rs. 5,35,88,933/- the tax payable was Rs. 21,79,445/- out of which 18,99,721/- were deposited and the difference amount remained Rs. 2,79,724/- whereas in the audit report difference was shown as Rs. 3,51,404/- which was due to the reason that they had deposited tax amounting to Rs. 80,238/- and Rs. 1,26,022/- vide TR-6 challan No. 2/7-7-1995 and 4/14-9-1995 instead of Rs. 88,349/- and 46,222/- as shown in the Audit report. Further it was submitted that during the year 1995-96, on the GPA premium of Rs. 21,26,485/- an amount of Rs. 1,06,324/- on account of Service tax was deposited in excess. If this amount adjusted from Rs. 2,79,724/- the tax liabilities remains Rs. 1,73,400 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1995-96 (±) 1,06,325/- 1995-96 (-) 2,79,724/- 1996-97 (±) 1,93,684/- 1996-97 (±) 1,86,489/- 1997-98 (-) 60,942/- Total 3,03,262/- 3,00,009/- It was pleaded that in the light of the above explanation no more tax was payable by the appellants. 4. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri S. Jain, ld. Counsel submits that General Insurance business undertaken by the appellants covers insurance against fire, marine insurance and misc. insurance. Ld. Counsel submits that misc. insurance covers motor vehicles insurance, GPA etc. that tax on the premiums collected for the above insurance business is charged @ 5%. Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with consolidated premium is non-comparable, unrealistic and without any rationale. 5. that the entire demand is time barred as it is Ld. Counsel submits beyond six months from the date of issue of SCN. It was pleaded by him that returns of Service tax were being submitted, from time to time which were being assessed to duty without raising any objection or seeking any clarification. It was submitted by the Counsel that the appellant being a Govt. organisation had no intention to evade payment of duty and therefore, there was no mis-statement or suppression of facts so as to attract a longer period for confirming the demand. It was, therefore, submitted that Section 71 of the Service Tax Act requires the Central Excise Service Tax O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bt the appellants contended that there was certain adjustments needed on detailed audit of the receipts of premium but he submits that no evidence has been produced either before the Ld. Commissioner or before the Tribunal. Ld. DR submits that wherever the appellants have been able to prove on the basis of evidence their case, Ld. Commissioner has already given them the benefit. He submits that as against the demand of Rs. 6,17,167/- in the SCN Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,44,561/-. 7. On the question of limitation Ld. DR submits that the fact remains that the appellants did not disclose the total amount of premium received by them correctly as has been alleged in the SCN and since the appellants could not prove by any do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining to the period prior to July'94 was received subsequently or there was adjustment of premium collected as GPA. In the absence of requisite documentary evidence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the authorities below. Even before us the appellant could not produce any evidence to show that there were premiums receipts received after July'94 though they pertained to the period prior to July'94 nor was there any evidence documentary or otherwise produced before us to show that there was adjustment of premium receipt under one head to premium receipt under a different head, consequent upon the suggestions made by authorities. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the authorities below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
