9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this amount along with interest be recovered from them. It is made clear that the all the authorities have noted that the provisions were introduced newly, hence even in case the claim of the appellant in respect of payment tax during the relevant period cannot be established then also the no penalties should be impose in term of Section 76, 77 or 78 of Finance Act, 1994, and should be waived of in terms of Section 80, ibid. The matter is remanded back to original authority for causing the verification of the claim made by the appellant in respect of payment of service tax during the period 01.07.2012 to 31.10.2012 either by them under reverse charge mechanism, or by the service provider - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax on the 75% of the gross value i.e. 3,09,245/- which they failed to do. From the copies of bills submitted by the assessee, it becomes clear that during the month of July, 2012 to October, 2012 the service provider charged service tax @ 12.36% whereas under the reverse charge mechanism the assessee should have themselves discharged the service tax liability @ 9.27%. On being pointed out the assessee discharged their service tax liability @ 9.27% for the period November, 2012 to May, 2013 amounting to ₹ 29,972/- along with interest vide challan No. 01/2012-13 dated 21.06.2013. The charging of Service tax @ 12.36% by the service provider in their bills cannot be termed as payment of service tax on the part of the assessee, when they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and during the course of argument. 4.2 Interestingly we note that para 7 of the Show Cause Notice, records- .....From the copies of bills submitted by the assessee, it becomes clear that during the month of July, 2012 to October, 2012 the service provider charged service tax @ 12.36% whereas under the reverse charge mechanism the assessee should have themselves discharged the service tax liability @ 9.27%. On being pointed out the assessee discharged their service tax liability @ 9.27% for the period November, 2012 to May, 2013 amounting to ₹ 29,972/- along with interest vide challan No. 01/2012-13 dated 21.06.2013. The charging of Service tax @ 12.36% by the service provider in their bills cannot be termed as payment of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a new provision service provider charged service tax on full amount and the appellant paid as per bill amount and service provider SMK securities paid to Government account. Hence the case is revenue neutral. 15. I find that as per appellant the amount ₹ 29,972/- has been paid by the appellant for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.10.2012, but the lower adjudicating authority has stated that the said amount was paid for the period 1.11.2012 to 31.05.2013 and the duty liability for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.10.2012 is still pending and is liable to be recovered from the appellant. 4.5 We are not in position to agree with the approach of the Commissioner (Appeal). If in respect of the same transaction service tax has been paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
