9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is claiming that they were engaged by various parties for completion of the various job works and construction of road etc. - The Adjudicating Authority has not given his finding whether the appellant has been providing the services in the SEZ area or not or whether they are entitled for the exemption from payment of Service Tax for the services provided by them to SEZ developer or SEZ unit. The Adjudicating Authority should give a fresh opportunity of hearing including the opportunity of presenting all the relevant papers/documents/evidences to the appellant and re-decide the matter afresh. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. - HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MR. C. L. MAHAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rem. It further appears that w.e.f. 01.07.2012, person liable to pay the service tax on the said services is governed under notification 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012. Whereas, Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 which has become operative w.e.f. 01.04.2011 the levy of tax is on the point of time of issue of invoice, payment actually received or the date of completion event and therefore the levy of tax becomes liable requires to be demanded accordingly along with interest under section 75 is payable on the service tax due under the said rules. 12.2 Whereas, it appears that under the provisions stipulated under the Section 72 of the Finance Act (Service Tax), 1994 service tax liability of the noticee is required to be determined by taking into account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Noticee was recorded on 12.03.2013 and certain documents provided by the Noticee on 12.03.2013. Thus, it appears that the Noticee has deliberately suppressed the material facts from the department, so as to avoid the payment of service tax. By not paying service tax at any point of time, and not filing periodic returns, the malafied intentions for evasion of the payment of service tax on the part of the Noticee are quite apparent. Therefore, the extended period of five years, under proviso to section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 appears to be invokable. Therefore, it appears that the non payment of service tax of Rs. 84,90,053/- (Rupees Eighty Four Lacs Ninty Thousand Fifty Three Only) is required to be recovered under Section 73(1) of the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2.2. It has further been mentioned that after 1st July, 2012 in case of supply manpower and recruitment agency service, 75% of the Service Tax is payable by the service recipient while the entire demand of Service Tax has been confirmed against the appellant. 3. We have also heard departmental representative who have reiterated finding as given in the impugned Order-In -Original. 4. We have heard both the sides, we find that while confirming the service tax demand the Adjudicating Authority has not indicated any work order to prove that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in fact that of supply of manpower and recruitment agency service while the appellant is claiming that they were engaged by various parties for completion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
