9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that services. All that is established by the Revenue is that the appellant had received certain sum from M/s. Bajrang Metallics Pvt. Ltd., which fact the appellant does not dispute. Both the lower authorities have erred in concluding that the appellant had provided Cargo Handling Agency Services during the relevant period without establishing it. Instead, they wrongly confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellant could not establish that it had not provided this service. The onus of proving that a taxable service has been rendered when issuing a SCN rests on the Revenue and not on the assessee. No evidence has been adduced by the Revenue that this service was rendered. The appellant is an individual and not an agency and hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and audited its records. The audit took a view that the appellant had provided Cargo Handling Agency Service to the appellant during the period 2004-05 to M/s. Bajrang Metallic and issued a show cause notice SCN which was confirmed by the order-in-original dated 27.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 4. According to the appellant, thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated and its bank accounts were seized when the appellant came to know that the Order in Original was passed. So, it approached the department, obtained a copy of this order-in-original and filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, by order dated 21.10.2016, remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. In the remand proceedings, the Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue supports the impugned order. 7. We have considered the submissions on both sides. The order of the Assistant Commissioner states that the SCN was issued because the audit of the records of M/s. Bajrang Metallics Pvt. Ltd. indicated that the appellant had provided cargo handling services and received an amount of Rs. 8,98,458/- and never paid service tax on it. He further went on to confirm the demand on the ground that the appellant had not established through documents the nature of service rendered by it is not cargo handling services. He also rejected the appellant s reliance on the CBEC s Circular stating that individuals are exempted from Cargo Handling Agency Service stating that M/s. Bajrang Mettalics had not employed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
