9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Customs Service Tax, Aurangabad, whereby the Ld. Commissioner passed the following order: ORDER (i) I hold that VCES declaration dated 25.12.2013 filed by the notice is substantially false. (ii) I confirm demand of ₹ 2,68,701/- against the notice under Section 111(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, which should be paid forthwith. (iii) I order recovery of interest from the notice on ₹ 2,68,701/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) I impose penalty of ₹ 2,68,701/- on the notice under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, this penalty would be reduced to 25% i.e.Rs.69,925/- if the reduced penalty is also paid along with Service Tax of ₹ 2,68,701/- so confirmed and applicable interest by the notice within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The dispute involved in the case is that due to difference of taxable value taken by the department and as claimed by the appellant for calculation of service tax dues. The adjudicating authority rejected the VCES declaration dt. 25.12.2013 and confirmed the demand of Service Tax under Section 111(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as amounting to ₹ 27,08,000/- the same is available on the page No. 85 of the Appeal file. The Commissioner has erred in not considering sale amount of ₹ 1,36,00,000/- shown in the trading, profit and loss account available on page No. 84 of the Appeal file. As per the accounting system adopted in the construction industry, wherever in the same financial year i.e. 2012 - 2013 Appellant has received the entire amount and sale has taken place in same financial year i.e. 2012 - 2013 it has been reflected in the sales amount and not in the advances for row house booking. Only the cases where entire amount towards the row house has not been received in the same financial year i.e. 2012 - 2013, it will be reflected in the advances for row house booking. The party wise bifurcation of ₹ 53,00,000/- received by the Appellant where entire consideration received after completion certificate is attached on page A of paper book submitted during the personal hearing. The table shows six transactions wherein, the transaction shown at serial no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 with respect to Miss. Ashwini Haligonde, Mr. Surajmal Bidada, Mr. Nitin Jivraj Munde and Mr. Kishor Shankarlal Chavan, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... howing datewise receipt and payment entries alongwith Bank name, Cheque number etc. From this ledger, I find that payment of ₹ 21,00,000/- was made on 31.01.2013 to their three clients (i.e. Balaram Jagid, Prashant Waghawre and Shivaji Shinde ₹ 7,00,000/- each) vide one cheque bearing No. 212258 to all three clients, Similarly ₹ 3,50,000/- paid to two client (i.e. ₹ 1,50,000/- to Rajendra Karpe and ₹ 2,00,000/- to Raju Agroya) on 29.10.2012 and 18.01.2013 vide one cheque bearing No. 212245. Payments to different clients through one cheque is not possible and also not permissible legally. Further, they have not produced any other evidence to establish their claim of return of advances by issuing one cheque to difference clients. Therefore, noticee s claim of return of advances is not acceptable to the extent of ₹ 24,50,000/-. 2.1 It is evident from the findings of the Commissioner that Commissioner has not objected that Appellant has wrongly adjusted the amount towards the cancellation of booking and the same is not permissible under the service tax law. Order merely says that Appellant has made payment of ₹ 21,00,000/- on 31.01.2013 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xability of amount received by the appellant prior to levy of service tax i.e. prior to 01.07.2010 on the Residential Complex Service under Para 11.06 of the order in original. The Para 11.06 of order in original reads as under, Further, they have stated that an advance of ₹ 1,25,000/- was received before 01.07.2010 which is not taxable in terms of Notification No. 36/2010-ST dated 28.06.2010. However, they have not produced any evidence in support of their claim. 3.1 Hence, commissioner has not objected that appellant is not liable for the payment of service on the amount of ₹ 1,25,000/-. Merely commissioner states that appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that ₹ 1,25,000/- was received prior to 01.07.2010. 3.2 The appellant submits that the date wise receipt details are already available in the registered agreement. The same is available on page 274 of the appeal file, which specifically shows that the appellant has received the amount of ₹ 1,25,000/- on 01.04.2010 which is prior to the levy of service tax on the Residential Complex Service . 3.3 Therefore, the demand with respect to the amount of ₹ 1,25,000/- to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
