9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, Section 77 and sub-clause zzzza of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as tax liability on reverse charge mechanism applicable to manpower supply service and avoided to make payment of Service Tax for which it failed to produce documents concerning payment of tax. There is no irregularity or illegality can be noticed in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that would require interference by this Tribunal - appeal dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 88126 of 2018 - A/86693/2019 - Dated:- 24-9-2019 - HON BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) None for the Appellant Shri Sudhir B. Mane, Assistant Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il to provide any clarity on the issue raised before this Tribunal except that amount shown in the Trial Balance was shown in the receipt side as works contract and the same has been disclosed in the ST-3 returns for the relevant period and without providing the basis or the documents basing on which duty demand was made, the order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department Shri Sudhir B. Mane, Assistant Commissioner supported the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that vague allegation is raised by the appellant regarding discharge of duty demand without any documentary proof. On the other hand, he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tching with ledger. Hence, I hold that assessee has not paid the Service Tax on Labour charges and Service Tax to be recovered with interest and penalty. 6. On perusal of the appeal memo and written note of argument, it is also apparently clear that appellant s only claim was that the amount in which Service Tax has been demanded for providing manpower supply services was received by the appellant and not paid to the sub-contractors. Appellant had therefore not complied with Rule 2A(1b)(i) (ii) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, Section 77 and sub-clause zzzza of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as tax liability on reverse charge mechanism applicable to manpower supply servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
