9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are product, however, it is a matter of record that no details in the form of any invoice or sales tax/VAT/assessment return has been submitted by the appellant to substantiate their claim. It is also a matter of record that so far as the short payment of service tax for the financial year 2013-2014 is concerned, the appellant have admitted their liability and the short payment of the service tax has been deposited by them after issue of the show cause notice. The Department have enough evidence to prove that the VCES declaration made by the appellant for financial year 2009-2010, 2010-2011 has been substantially false as the appellant have not come clean in making a declaration before the Department about their actual service tax liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untary Compliance Encouragement Scheme. The audit of the appellant was undertaken between 28 April 2014 to 29 April 2014 by the Department and it was pointed out by the audit on the basis of the scrutiny of the financial records that the appellant have grossly mis-declared the service tax liability for the financial year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and therefore the declaration made by the appellant was substantially false and therefore the same need to be rejected. As a corollary impugned show cause notice was issued for recovery of short payment of service tax for financial year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. It has been alleged by the Department that the taxable value of ₹ 1,12,28,363/- was less declared by the appellant for financial year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the charges as levelled in the show cause notice and has held as follows :- 1. The demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 1,23,79,127/- issued under show cause notice No. 75/COMMR/ST/ADJ/BPL-I/2014 dated 18/09/2014 for the period from April 2009 to March 2014 is confirmed and is ordered to be recovered forthwith in terms of proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act. 2. Interest at the appropriate rate is ordered to be charged and recovered in terms of Section 75 of the Act on the amount confirmed at (1) above. 3. A penalty of ₹ 10,000/- is imposed under Section 77 of the Act for contravention of provisions of Section 69 and 70 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. prior to issue of the order-in-original. With regard to short payment of the service tax for financial year 2011-2012 the appellants have submitted that the Department has taken the total value of sales and service component while calculating the service tax and since the appellant is also engaged in sale of the software and therefore the revenue generated from the sales should have been reduced from the gross receipt shown in the balance sheet while calculating the short payment of the service tax. 5. After hearing the rival submissions as well as on perusal of the record of the appeal, we find that the Department has written to the appellant vide three letters bearing No. RST/BPL-I/GR.B/AN-C-Net-63/14 dated 23 June 2014, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual service tax liability and therefore we feel that VCES declaration made by the appellant have correctly been rejected. We also feel that the claims made by the appellant that part of receipts pertains to sale of software product has also not been substantiated by the appellant by adducing the requisite evidences in the forms of invoices or VAT/sales tax returns etc. and therefore we feel that the findings given in impugned order-in-original are legally sustainable. 7. In view of above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order-in-original and therefore we uphold the same. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Order pronounced in open court on 23/08/2019.) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
