9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant is charging and collecting service tax from the customers with respect to OLIDAR services and Works Contract Services (WCS). However, due to frequent change of accounting staff and also shifting of office premises, they have not filed ST3 returns for some period. They had filed returns up to the period ended September 2015. (i) Accordingly, it appeared to Revenue that Appellants have not deposited service tax of Rs.58,02,022/- on a portion of income shown in the Profit & Loss account for the Financial 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) Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the Revenue that Appellants have not maintained proper record of transactions or not maintained the required Cenvat register/account. Admittedly, Revenue has relied on the books of accounts and P & L account maintained by the Appellants for raising demand of service tax. For delayed filing of ST3 returns, there can be no presumption that Appellants have not taken Cenvat credit within the prescribed time. Further, Appellants have been disclosing the amount of Cenvat credit taken periodically 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 up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that Appellant was liable to pay service tax as demanded under this head. 13. Assailing the findings of Commissioner, learned Counsel urges that it is evident from the ST3 returns filed, that the Appellants have not claimed any deductions from the gross value of the services. There is no difference in the gross value declared in the ST3 returns filed and the gross value adopted by the Revenue for the period 2011-12 to 2015-16. Learned Commissioner has erroneously observed 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 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is demonstrated from the extract of the ledger account as well as from the Assessment Order under provisions of VAT for the period May 2011 to June 2014 that Appellants have got turnover of Rs.2,17,13,547/- for the period 2011-12, Rs.78,07,366/- for the period 2012-13 and Rs.14,38,56/- for the period 2013-14. They have accordingly paid the sales tax as per the VAT Assessment Order. 18. Learned AR for Revenue relied on the Impugned Order. 19. Having considered the 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 hosti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Appellants have simply provided multimedia presentation, website hosting and domain registration services which are not taxable under the category of OLIDAR service. Accordingly, we allow this ground in favour of the Appellant and set aside the demand. e) Regarding demand of Rs.3,09,270/- (Rs.1,68,286/- towards security service and Rs.1,40,984/- towards consultancy service) under RCM : - 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
