2017 (9) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uted to such funds, the amount towards the workmen deployed by the appellant. The fact is not under dispute that such contributed amount was never given by such service receiver to the appellant - the gross value for the computation of service tax liability in the hands of the appellant will not take into consideration the amount of contribution made by the service receiver M/s HNGIL directly into the respective heads of account - demand set aside. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - Since, the issue involved in these cases relates to interpretation of the statutory provisions with regard to addition of the contributed amount into the gross value under Section 67 ibid, it cannot be said that the appellants had indulged into the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s to be discharged. Accordingly, show cause proceedings were initiated by the department, seeking confirmation/ recovery of the service tax amount and for imposition of the penalties. The matter was adjudicated by the Department and the proposals made in the show cause notices were confirmed. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudged demands. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the employer s contribution towards P.F., E.P.F. and E.S.I. had never been received by the appellants but the same were directly deposited by the principal employer M/s HNGIL into the Central Government through respective heads of accounts. Thus, he submitted that since the amount towards the statutory contributi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Neelav Jaiswal Brothers Vs Commr. of Central Excise Allahabad 2014 (34) STR 225 (Tri. Del) and Maurya Brothers Vs Commr. of Central Excise, Allahabad 2016 (42) STR 859 (Tri. Del). With regard to the limitation aspect, the Ld. DR has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ideal Security Vs Commr. of Central Excise Allahabad- 2011 (23) STR 66 (Tri. Del) and stated that allegation of suppression of facts etc. are justified in the present case for invoking the extended period of limitation. 5. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the case records. 6. The Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insura .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X