9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Rajashree Polyfil Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Surat-II [ 2023 (6) TMI 456 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] . It can be treated as expert s evidence for the reason that Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, a statutory body instituted by the Government of India has recognized them to be competent to issue certificates on Financial Statements and Auditor General of India has been accepting the Financial Statement of registered Companies, when endorsed by Chartered Accountants with their signatures and seals, apart from the fact that Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits acceptance of such document without a formal proof, in their absence under certain contingences. In view of irregularity in the Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over shown as services rendered by it in its Form-26(AS) against which appropriate TDS was deducted, it had discharged Service Tax on the turnover of Rs.7,254 Crores and therefore, additional Service Tax liability to the tune of Rs.387 Crores @12.36% was not discharged by the Respondent. It was pointed out to the Respondent-Assesse but it offered no plausible explanation for which Show Cause-cum-demand notice dated 16.04.2019 was issued to the Respondent. Adjudication was carried out but the Commissioner of CGST Central Excise, Mumbai absolved the Respondent/Appellant SBI Life of its liabilities by his detailed Adjudication Order passed on dated 30.03.2021. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner, Department is before us assailing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STAT Mumbai, M/s Sharma Fabricators Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 2017 (7) TMI 168- CESTAT Allahabad, M/s Kush Constructions Vs. CGST Nacin, ZTI, Kanpur reported in 2019 (5) TMI 1248-CESTAT Allahabad, argued that the entire demand was raised on the basis of difference between Income Tax Return and Service Tax-3 Returns, which in view of these judgments, cited supra, cannot form the sole basis of the demand for which the order of the Commissioner needs no interference by this Tribunal. 6. We have gone through the appeal case record, relied upon judgments and the order passed by the Commissioner. At the outset it is to be noted that certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant is alone a valid p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hief Commissioner s, that three different percentage of Service Taxes ranging from 1.545% and 3.09% to 12.36% were leviable against the services rendered by the Respondent for different insurance categories but Show-cause notice contains a calculations of demand on the basis of its calculations @12.36%. It is, therefore, cannot be said that other relevant documents or corroborative piece of evidence were not examined by the Learned Commissioner before passing of his order to set aside the demand raised against the Respondent and we find no irrationality in such a speaking order passed by the Commissioner, Reproduction of para 9.1 only would clearly reveal the glaring omission in the Departmental Proceedings. It reads Para 9 I have gone thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.7171,60,69,047/- less value as per ST3 return for the said period i.e. Rs.3034,03,80,966/-j as against the demand raised on differential value of Rs.3127,78,64,875 /-. g. Though the assesse is required to discharge service tax at different rates of 12.36%, 1.545% and 3.09%, the notice has demanded service tax on the entire differential amount at the rate of 12.36%... 7. In view of our observation as above and having regard to the findings of the Commissioner noted above, which speak a lot about the defects in the Show-cause notice that has formed the foundation of this proceedings, we have got no hesitation to go with the order passed by the Commissioner in setting aside the demand etc. raised in the Show-cause notice dated 16.04.2019. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is missing in the show cause notice. We, therefore, hold that the said show cause notice dated 26.06.2020 is not sustainable in law 8. Hence, in view of irregularity in the Show cause and the non-sustainability of demand purely on the basis of difference between ST- 3 return and Income Tax returns of any other period, without any further examination to establish that the difference is on account of consideration received towards discharge of services, the following order is passed. THE ORDER 9. The appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Commissioner in Order-in-Original No. 45/SN/COMMR-Audit- III/CGST CEX/2021 vide order dated 30.03.2021 is hereby confirmed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 25.01.2024) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
