9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngalore has no jurisdiction to make any demand of service tax in respect of consideration received for jurisdictions outside Bangalore. Consequently demands raised pertaining to outside jurisdictions are set aside and will need to be excluded - the demand has to be restricted to the normal period of limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the first show cause notice, which culminated in an order passed by the Commissioner of the Central Excise on 6-5-2002, a second show cause-notice was issued on 3-4-2003. The said notice also in fact does not refer to the period in which the suppression is said to have been made by the respondent-assessee. However, the same is apparent from the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax (Annexure-E) wherein it is clearly mentioned that the assessee suppressed the value of taxable service pertaining to the year 1999-2000. In the absence of the details mentioned in the second show cause-notice with regard to suppression, we have to rely only on the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax to ascertain what was the nature of suppression referred to issue second show-cause notice. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal alleging that there was in fact no suppression of material before the Department and issue of second show cause notice was not valid in the eye of law. However, the Tribunal has not considered these facts nor given any finding as to whether the second show-cause notice is valid in the eye of law, but mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax raised in the show-cause notice dt. 03/04/2003 in respect of Bangalore is without basis inasmuch as it seeks to levy service tax twice for the same service rendered. iii. The learned counsel clarified that a dispute arose for the period October 1998 to March 2001 during which certain services rendered at Delhi and Mumbai were billed at Bangalore. When the mistake was noticed by the appellant, they have come forward and paid the service tax amount involved amounting to ₹ 5,43,092/- along with interest for delayed payment amounting to ₹ 2,26,689/-. This was the subject matter of the original show-cause notice issued by the Department dt. 04/07/2011 which came to be adjudicated by the order dt. 06/05/2002. The learned counsel further argued that the demand raised in the show-cause notice dt. 03/04/2003 also covered some of the period October 1998 to March 2001 for which a separate show-cause notice was issued and adjudicated invoking the extended period of limitation. Consequently by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugars Factory Vs. Collector [2008(9) STR 314 (SC)], he argued that the ground of suppression cannot be raised by the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the appellant has failed to produce the registration certificate in respect of other branches. Further they have not produced any documentary evidence regarding payment of service tax by those branches during the period 1999-2000. Consequently he has confirmed the demand of service tax. 6. From the records submitted in the present appeal, we note that the appellant has separate registrations in New Delhi, Bombay, Cochin, Madras and Bangalore. Accordingly they are required to pay service tax within the respective jurisdiction for the consideration recieved for the provision of service in the respective areas. The appellant has also submitted the break up of the considerations for the various branch offices making up the total of ₹ 6.95 crores. It is evident that the service tax has to be paid separately in the various jurisdictions where branch offices are there even though the Income Tax return is filed consolidated for the entire operations of the appellant s company. From the above, we are of the view that the show-cause notice dt. 03/04/2003 and the impugned order passed thereon are not justified inasmuch as the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore has the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same, hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant. 8. To conclude the above discussions, in view of the above, the conclusions are summarised as follows:- i. The department is not within its rights to make a demand for the longer period vide the show-cause notice dt. 03/04/2003. Consequently, the demand if any has to be restricted to the normal period of limitation. ii. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore has no jurisdiction to make any demand of service tax in respect of consideration received for jurisdictions outside Bangalore. Consequently demands raised pertaining to outside jurisdictions are set aside and will need to be excluded. iii. In respect of Bangalore jurisdiction, the appellant has been paying service tax regularly which has not been taken into account in the impugned order. Further the differential service tax of ₹ 5.43 lakhs paid for the period October 1998 to March 2011 also has not been taken into account. iv. We consider it necessary to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to pass a de novo d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
