9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on an intelligence that the appellants are not discharging their Service Tax liability correctly and they have been indulging in suppression of taxable value on various services provided by them, has searched the premises of the appellant on 28/29.3.2012. From the investigation, it has transpired that since 2007-08 to February, 2012, the value of taxable service declared by them under ST 3 returns was much less than what was declared in the balance sheet and books of accounts of the appellant firm for various financial years. After detailed investigation, a Show cause notice dated 16.10.2012 came to be issued to the appellant which was adjudicated by learned Commissioner (Service Tax) vide his order-in-original dated 07/AKJ/CST/2014 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority has erred in not excluding these values from total taxable value of services while demanding service tax. The learned advocate has also submitted that the adjudicating authority has failed to give them benefit of cum duty benefit while calculating the service tax demand on them. Learned advocate has relied upon the following case laws in support of their claim: 1. M/s. Whitecliff Tea Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Indore [2018 (2) TMI 1414-CESTAT, New Delhi] 2. M/s. Candid Security Services vs CCE & ST Raipur [2018 (6) TMI 808 -CESTAT, New Delhi] 2. Learned advocate has also contended that the show cause notice is vague in nature as Service tax has not been demanded under specific category of service and it mentions both security ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant have been manipulating the balance sheet by mis-declaring the taxable value in the ST 3 return and balance sheet. It has also been contended that Shri T C Rao, CMD of the appellant in his statement dated 17.9.2012 has categorically admitted that they have fabricated and forged the value of taxable service declared under ST 3 returns submitted by them with an intent to evade payment of service tax. 5. We have heard both the sides and have perused the record of appeal. We find that the present appeal has arisen against the confirmation of service tax of Rs. 1,09,41,124/- along with interest and penalties as leviable under Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that the appellant have evaded Service Tax by suppressing the taxable value in thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax from them. We find that this fact need to be checked by the adjudicating authority whether the claim which is being made by the appellant is factually correct or not and if they have been engaged in the activity of construction of roads and its maintenance, same need to be considered and taxability of the same to be checked as per the prevalent provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 at the relevant time. The arguments taken by the appellant that they have been working as pure agent with regard to wages, salary, PF etc., on behalf of its clients and wages, salary, PF etc. collected by them from their clients have been passed on by them to the persons supplied by them to its clients and therefore, he is working as pure agent and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the gross amount received by the appellant from their clients is a well settled legal position in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Valuation in respect of 'security agency services' has been subject matter of many decisions of Tribunal and Hon'ble High Courts which are as under : 1. Security Agencies Association v. Union of India [2012 (28) S.T.R. 3 (Ker)]; 2. Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corporation v. Union of India [2012 (25) S.T.R. 122 (P&H)]; 3. New Industrial Security Force v. CCE, Kanpur} [2006 (3) S.T.R. 197 (Tri.-Del.)]; 4. Panther Detective Services v. CCE, Kanpur [2006 (4) S.T.R. 116 (Tri.-Del.)]; 5. CCE, Pune II v. Commander Security Services [2015 (39) S.T.R. 494 (Tri.-Mum.)] 7. Accordingly, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate that the extended period proviso is not invokable in this particular case as they have been regularly filing ST 3 returns. We find that this is an established case of intentional evasion of service tax by manipulating and forging the figures of the taxable value for levy of service tax by the appellant and therefore, we hold that the demand for extended time period is rightly invoked. 9. In view of the above, we hold as follows: (i) We feel that order-in-original is legally correct in principal in confirming service tax under section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 as well as in imposing penalties under section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 on the appellant. (ii) However, so far as the quantum of service tax is concerned, we feel that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
