9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is also directed to produce any of these evidences after collecting from the service providers to ensure that the Service Tax collected was in fact paid to the Government account. Invocation of extended period - HELD THAT:- The appellant has produced many copies of the invoices raised by the service providers of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services and also Security Services. It is no more res integra that extended period can be invoked only when there are ingredients necessary to justify the demand for the extended period in a case leading to short payment or non-payment of tax. The onus of establishing that such ingredients are present in a given case is on the Revenue. The active element of intent to evade duty by action or inaction needs to be present for invoking extended period - invoking extended period is not justified in this case. The demand of Service Tax for extended period is not maintainable. Even for normal period, the issue of demand of Service Tax on Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service, Security Service and Goods and Transport Agency Service is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to carry out verification of evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une 2014 to June 2017 under the proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994; and, iv. An amount of Rs.2,485/- (Rupees Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Five only) as Service Tax along with applicable CESS on Notice-Pay under declared service under Section 66 E(e) of Finance Act, 1994, for the month of December 2014, under the proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994; v. Interest at appropriate rates under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the amounts demanded [as detailed in (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) as above]. and, vi. Imposing penalty under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the amounts demanded (as detailed in [(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) as above]. 2.3 After due process of adjudication, the original adjudicating authority have confirmed the Service Tax demands raised on Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services and GTA Services under Reverse Charge Mechanism. An amount of Rs.2,485/- was also confirmed as Service Tax on Notice-Pay along with interest and penalties were imposed under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the above confirmed Service Tax. 2.4 However, an appeal was filed to the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Service Tax Department are required to pay Service Tax so collected from the IMPCOPS and demanding the same tax amount which was already paid to the service providers would tantamount to double taxation and be violative of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as Article 265 of the Constitution of India. 3.2 The appellant had relied upon CBEC Circular F. No. 178/1/2002-CE dated 07.01.2003 and also on the decisions in the cases of Nagaraja Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2010 (19) STR 828 (Tri. Mad.)], Elkos Pens Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2019 (24) GSTL 652], Ind Sil Electro Smelts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2018 (17) GSTL 434] and the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of D.Y. Beathel Enterprises Vs. STO [Data Cell] in W.P. No. 2127 of 2021. 3.3 The Ld. Counsel has argued that the demands have been confirmed by invoking the extended period as the Show Cause Notice issued which was 12.04.2018 covered the period from October 2012 to June 2017. Extended period of time can be invoked only when the special ingredients are available and in their absence, larger period is not be invokable. In the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. 6. The following issues arise in this appeal for decision:- i. Whether confirmation of demands of Service Tax for receipt of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service, Security Service and Goods Transport Agency Service on Reverse Charge Mechanism basis against the appellant is justified? ii. Whether invocation of extended period in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is maintainable or not in the facts of this case? 7.1.1 The facts of this case indicate that the appellants have reportedly paid the service charges along with the tax applicable thereon to the service providers. As evidence, the Ld. Advocate has produced copies of invoices raised by the service providers. 7.1.2 The lower appellate authority has confirmed the demand of Service Tax in respect of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service and Security Service, but, regarding the demand of Service Tax on Goods and Transport Agency Service was remanded to the original adjudicating authority as the appellant was found to have submitted details relating to freight charges paid which were below Rs.750/- and so exempted from payment of Service Tax. The appellant has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aja Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2010 (19) STR 828 (Tri. Chennai)], the Tribunal, it was held as follows: - The assessees herein contend that the entire Service tax amount of Rs. 3,052/- confirmed against them on the ground that they were the consignee and hence liable to pay Service tax on GTA services, has already been paid by the GTA to whom the assessees made payment along with freight. This submission is borne out by documentary evidence. The lower appellate authority before whom this plea was raised has not controverted the submission of payment of tax by the GTA. In the circumstances, I agree with the assessees that the present demand against them cannot be sustained, as it would amount to double payment, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 7.1.4 The appellant is all along arguing that Service Tax payments were made to the service providers along with the service charges which is evident from the copies of the invoices produced which are in the appeal. These invoices clearly indicate that these service providers were registered with the Service Tax Department. It should have been possible for the appellant to call fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
