9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012 and discharging it to the Government under reverse charge mechanism, the demand has been raised - Since the service tax on the entire services has been paid to the Government, a further demand on such services cannot sustain. Penalty - Held that:- The situation is contravention of the relevant provisions by wrongly availing the notification benefit. Taking this into consideration, the penalty of ₹ 6,105/- imposed is required to be sustained - The impugned order is, therefore, modified to the extent of setting aside the demand of service tax but upholding the penalty of ₹ 6,150/- imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/41961/2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 43142/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the entire tax liability has been discharged by the appellants together with the service recipient on the services rendered. The service recipient obtained clarification from the department and they informed the appellants that they would be discharging 75% of the service tax liability as per the Notification No. 30/2012-ST. Thereby, the appellants were asked to discharge only 25% of the balance service tax on Security Services. On such instructions given by service recipient, the appellants had discharged balance 25%. It is not disputed by the department that the entire service tax has been discharged on the said services provided by the appellants. The error is only that the appellants have not discharged 100% and instead, the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ischarged 25% of the service tax, whereas, the service recipient has discharged and paid to the Government 75% of the service tax on services provided. Thus, it is not disputed that the services rendered by appellants have suffered service tax. Merely for the erroneous manner of discharging the service tax by opting for the benefit of Notification No.30/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012 and discharging it to the Government under reverse charge mechanism, the demand has been raised. Since the service tax on the entire services has been paid to the Government, a further demand on such services in my view cannot sustain. This view is supported by the decision relied upon by the appellants in M/s. Kakinada Seaports Ltd. (supra). 6. However, the si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
