9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deliberate intent of non-payment of service tax. Valuation of taxable service - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of Neelav Jaiswal & Brothers Versus CCE, Allahabad [2013 (8) TMI 147 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that Section 67 of the Act dealing with valuation of taxable service for charging Service Tax specifies that where the provision of service is for a consideration in money, the taxable value would be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him. Pure agent service - reimbursement of expenses towards Uniform Allowance, Bonus, PF, OT allowance, ESIC, Insurance, etc - includibility - Held that: - We find no merit in such claim as clearly brought out in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 1,21,36,522/- for the period from April, 2006 to March, 2011. He also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The ld Counsel for the appellant contesting the findings in the impugned order submitted mainly on the following lines: a) The impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The relied upon documents were not made available to the appellant. During the personal hearing, they have sought the relied upon documents for filing a defence reply. As they have not been provided with these documents, no reply could be filed. The original authority proceeded to decide the case in clear violation of principles of natural justice. They were not given proper opportunity for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) The appellants registered with the department and were engaged in this business for many years even before the introduction of service tax liability on the said service. They have deliberately paid service tax only on a part of the consideration without any legal basis. b) Further, they have collected service tax and not paid to the Government and neither filed returns for two years from April, 2009 to March, 2011. This position has been admitted by the appellants. c) The financial hardship claim is not acceptable as the business of the appellant and revenue from such business was continuing during the material period. When the appellants can continue to carry on the business and earn income, they cannot take a plea that medical ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal in the case of M/s Neelav Jaiswal & Brothers-2014(34) STR 225 (Tri.Del.) observed as below: "5. Shri B. Laxminarasimhan, ld. Counsel for the appellants refers to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.) to support his contention that under Section 67 of the Act the value of a taxable service can only be the gross value received for providing such service and not any amount in excess of the consideration received as quid pro quo from the service recipient. We are in respectful agreement and are also bound by the principle delineated in the judgment of the High Court of Delhi but such resonance to this non-derogable principle is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d authorities, in terms of the appellant‟s statutory obligation. Both these amounts therefore constitute the gross amount charged by the appellant for the taxable service provided to M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd., since the taxable service was provided for a consideration in money. Both these amounts therefore constitute the gross amount charged by the appellant for having provided the taxable service. 8. On the aforesaid analysis, we find no infirmity in the concurrent findings/conclusions recorded by the adjudicating authority and the appellate Commissioner (Appeals), warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs." 6. Further, we note that there is no question of appellants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.07.2011 had categorically admitted that all receipts are only through two bank accounts and are towards taxable service provided by them. He also verified these statements and tax calculation based on such statements and clarified the correctness of the same. He also admitted that they received service tax payment from the client and did not deposit the same with the Government. The total Service Tax liability amounting to ₹ 1,21,36,522/- has been categorically admitted by the Director. As stated by the appellant, the said amount was reported to have been fully deposited by the appellant in pursuance of a direction for pre-deposit given by the Tribunal which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. 8. The appellant also sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
