9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uppression of facts - HELD THAT:- Evidently Appellants have not disputed the amount of turnover as calculated by the Revenue and the same is matching with their financial records for the period April 2011 to March 2016 - It is already held herein above that the Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant is legal and proper and the same is not irregular. Thus, Appellants have rightly discharged the service tax and there is no case of escaped service tax. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the Appellant and the demand is set aside. Short payment of service tax - suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- It is found that the Appellants have got matching turnover for sales of goods, which is not exigible to service tax during the period of dispute. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the Appellant and set aside the demand. Irregularly availing exemption in terms of Notification No.01/2006-ST - HELD THAT:- The Appellants have simply provided multimedia presentation, website hosting and domain registration services which are not taxable under the category of OLIDAR service. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the Appellant and set aside the demand. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Year 2011-12 and 2012-13. Demand confirmed. (ii) Appellants have availed irregular Cenvat credit of Rs.3,25,04,101/-, after more than one year from the date of issue of invoice for the period April 2011 to February 2016, and the same is hit by the provisions of Rule 4(1) of CCR. Demand confirmed. (iii) Appellants have short paid service tax of Rs.3,83,94,795/- during the period April 2011 to March 2016. Demand confirmed (iv) Appellants have also not paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) as required under Notification No.30/2012-ST, tax totaling Rs.4,13,824/-, out of which Rs.1,04,555/- was dropped and the balance amount of Rs.3,09,270/- was confirmed. (v) Further, an amount of Rs.17,67,729/- was proposed to be disallowed being irregular availment of Cenvat credit for the period April 2013 to September 2013 and the same was confirmed. (vi) An amount of Rs.12,41,170/- for the period 2010-11 was confirmed payable on the value of Rs.1,20,50,190/- for alleged hosting of website and irregular availment of exemption. (vii) Few other demands were raised in the SCN which were dropped. 2. SCN dated 13.06.2017 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriodically during the period 2011-12 to 2015-16 and also in the ST3 returns filed by them. Appellants have also been using the said Cenvat credit by making debit at the end of each month for payment of the output tax. It is further urged that amendment was brought in Rule 4(1) of CCR w.e.f. 01.09.2014 restricting the period for taking credit from the date of invoice. Prior to this, there was no restriction or time limit in taking the Cenvat credit. 7. During the course of argument, the Appellant demonstrated by referring to the extract of their Cenvat account/Register from which it is evident that they have been taking credit regularly. 8. Learned AR for Revenue, on this issue, has relied upon the Impugned Order. 9. Having considered the rival contentions on this issue, we find that the Appellants have regularly taken Cenvat credit and no case is made out of having taken credit after more than one year from the date of invoice. In this view of the matter, this ground is allowed in favour of the Appellant. b) Regarding amount of Rs.3,83,94,795/- on OLIDAR service:- 10. The demand relates to the period April 2011 to March 2016. The investigation was taken up during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that on the gross value of turnover for services of Rs.30,33,66,032/-, service tax of Rs.3,83,94,795/- is payable. Further, learned Commissioner observed that Appellants have paid service tax of Rs.40,82,962/- in cash and the balance amount of Rs.3,43,11,332/- paid by debiting to Cenvat account is irregular. 14. Learned AR for Revenue has relied on the findings in the Impugned Order. 15. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that evidently Appellants have not disputed the amount of turnover as calculated by the Revenue and the same is matching with their financial records for the period April 2011 to March 2016. We have already held herein above that the Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant is legal and proper and the same is not irregular. Thus, we hold that Appellants have rightly discharged the service tax as noted herein above and there is no case of escaped service tax. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the Appellant and the demand is set aside. c) Regarding demand of Rs.58,02,022/- for the period 2011-12 2012-13:- 16. It is alleged in the SCN that on comparison of revenue from sales/provision of services shown in Profit Loss Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rival contentions, we find that Appellants have got matching turnover for sales of goods, which is not exigible to service tax during the period of dispute. Accordingly, we allow this ground in favour of the Appellant and set aside the demand. d) Regarding amount of Rs.12,41,170/- for the period 2010-11 for irregularly availing exemption:- 20. It is alleged in the SCN that Appellants have availed exemption/deduction in terms of Notification No.01/2006-ST in respect of services rendered under the category of OLIDAR during the period 2010-11 valued at Rs.1,20,50,190/-. Further, Appellants have charged/received an amount of Rs.52,21,747/- towards multimedia presentation, an amount of Rs.24,10,039/- towards website hosting and Rs.44,18,404/- towards domain registration. The Appellants had contended that these receipts will not fall under OLIDAR, as proposed in the SCN. It was also contended that Appellant was not put to notice regarding the classification of services rendered, if any, during 2010-11. The Appellants relied on the ruling of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Zinc Products vs UOI [1992 (57) ELT 222 (Mad)], wherein it was held that no demand can be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25. Assailing the demand, it is urged that M/s Satya Security and Management services, was the lone service provider, provided security services during this period. The invoices raised by the service provider reveals that service provider has charged full amount of service tax as applicable on the gross consideration and the Appellants have reimbursed the same to the said service provider by making payment along with the full amount as charged in the invoices. Thus, it is evident that the full amount of applicable service tax has been discharged. Thus, the demand of service tax for security services from this Appellant under RCM, amounts to double taxation, which is not permissible. The Appellant relies on the ruling of the Coordinate Bench at Ahmedabad in Transpek Silox Industries Pvt Ltd vs CCE, Vadodara [2018 (17) GSTL 434]. 26. So far Consultancy service is concerned, the same is not a specified service under Notification No.30/2012-ST. Further, in respect of services provided by individual Advocate or a firm of Advocates, by way of legal services, the receiver of such service has to pay service tax under RCM. In the facts of the case, Appellants have not received any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
