9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a central excise as well as service tax registration and is engaged in manufacturing of Soya refined oil, Soya meal etc. During the course of audit of appellant's record for the year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, it was observed that appellant has failed to discharge the service tax liability. The demand has been raised vide two separate show cause notices as follows: Show Cause Notice No. 4669 dated 15.09.2015 for the year 2012-13 vide which following amounts of service tax are demanded: (i) On legal services an amount of Rs.95,972/-. (ii) On commission paid to the Directors an amount of Rs.6,79,800/-. (iii) On security services of an amount of Rs.2,18,198/-. 2. Vide Show Cause Notice No. 7468 dated 10.12.2015 for the period 2013-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be decided on merits. On the said next date of hearing i.e. on 06.03.2024 again none was present for the appellant. However, department had placed on record the written synopsis. Hence opportunity to await for the appellant's presence and the final submissions on their behalf is hereby declined. 5. Arguments on behalf of the department heard. 6. Learned Department Representative has reiterated the discussions and findings given in both the Order-in-Originals and order under challenge/impugned Order-in-Appeal. It is mentioned that appellant has rightly been held liable under Reverse Charge Mechanism for the payment of service tax as has been demanded. The demand against the legal fee paid to the advocates vide show cause notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lary paid to them. The appellant who otherwise is a limited company is supposed to declare to their auditors such details as are relevant to make conclusions about groupings. The grouping in the audit balance sheet has already become final. No evidence is there to counter the said finality. Resultantly, the demand with respect to the commission to the directors was also confirmed. 9. With respect to the demand under subsequent show cause notice, we observe that the reply dated nil/February, 2016 was filed by the appellant. With respect to the Manpower Supply Service, it was mentioned that the person employed are not the contractors but they are the notices whose salary was on hourly basis related to the production of Soya oil. The demand w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome tax, however, the demand was confirmed holding as follows: "As such demand may not be confirmed till we submit our statement of payment or liability of service tax. Party causally replied that service provider has not demanded service tax, so they not paid. As per Notification 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012, in this case 100% tax liability of service tax on service recipient. Service tax liability was on full amount, charged by service provider. Party argument is not correct and without any authority of law. I confirmed the service tax amount on legal service alongwith interest for recovery. Held accordingly." 12. With respect to GTA services the service tax liability of appellant was confirmed with the following observations: "Party no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
