9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied for its correctness. As appellant has not produced any document to establish their claim for further deduction of Rs 40,896.45/- paid a service tax by Hindalco, the said deduction has not be allowed by the authorities below. No such document evidencing payment of this amount as service tax by Hindalco to appellant has been produced before us, hence we do not find any merits in this claim also. In view of the specific admissions made by the appellant, there are no infirmities in the impugned order. There are no merits in this appeal - appeal dismissed. - MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate Ms Aayushi Srivastava, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.19/ST/ALLD/2012 dated 31.01.2012 of the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Allahabad. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original No.(ST-205/2010) 86 of 2011 dated 16.06.2011, wherein following has been held:- ORDER 1. I hereby confirm the demand of The service tax amounting to Rs. 11,40,04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Interestingly, appellant in the present case even before the Original Authority also did not contested anything in the show cause notice except for certain computations. Relevant paragraphs of the order of Original Authority are reproduced bellow:- The party submitted defence reply on 13.05.2011 and also appeared for personal hearing on 13.05.2011, submitted that they do not wish to contest the show cause notice on merit except on the ground of quantification of demand in as much as the gross payments received include the amount of service tax, amount pertaining to a particular service not taxable prior to a particular date, benefit of threshold limit exemption, service amounting to manufacture and material handling within the plant not falling under purview of service tax. Calculation chart provided by the party is as under: Summary of calculation for tax liability of M/s Paswan Co., Vishwakarma Naar, Renukoot, Sonebhadra Details Amount Amount Gross Turnover as per SCN 1,12,51,402.00 Less PF included in gross turnover 10,19,314.00 Less service prior to 16.06.2005 3.22,201.00 Less service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the chart submitted by the party the matter was referred to the concerned Division. However the concerned party has not provided the relevant record to the division or Range staff for verification. Since the supporting documents were neither submitted to the Adjudicating Authority nor provided to the division /Range staff, the chart submitted by the party can t be accepted .Further the chart provided by the party is also not proper as per valuation aspect. I also take note of the charges of non-payment/short payment which have not been rebutted by the party. It is also a fact that the party failed to discharge the statutory burden of declaring the value of taxable service to the department which amounts to suppression of facts, and provision of extended period is invokable in this case. Thus I find that the demand as proposed in the Show Cause Notice is liable to be confirmed. It has also been observed that more than 200 such show cause notices have been issued by the division and Commissionerate Allahabad. It indicates that there is mass unawareness amongst the service providers of that area. It is also obvious that the party is ready to deposit the due service Tax In my perce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed show cause notice itself. The Para 8 of the show cause notice contains as under A demand cum show cause notice for recovery of service tax involved on the amount of Provident Fund and Bonus received by them, if any which is included in above gross value, has been issued separately. Thus, service tax on the remaining amount suppressed gross value of Rs. 99,08,678/- remains recoverable. The above observations undoubtedly manifest that the amount received on account of PF/Bonus was not taken up in the impugned show cause notice itself. This is also evident from the facts that as per show cause notice, the appellants received total Rs. 1,12,51,402/- from Hindalco and declared in their ST-3 returns only Rs. 2,93,210/-. Thus the suppressed gross value comes to Rs. 1,12,51,402 - 2,93,210 = Rs. 1,09,58,192/- and demand should have been raised on this amount. But the impugned show cause notice clearly evidences that the demand was raised on suppressed gross value of Rs. 99,08,678/- i.e. after deducting the amount of Provident Fund. Therefore, the appellant's contention has no strength. 7. On further going through the facts of the case and the material available on record, I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t record to the division or Range staff for verification. Since the supporting documents were neither submitted to the adjudicating authority nor provided to the division 'Range staff, the chart submitted by the party can't be accepted. Further, the chart submitted by the party is also not proper as per valuation aspect.' I find that the appellants have neither contested nor controverted the aforesaid findings. I also find that the appellants have not adduced any evidence documentary or otherwise in support of their contention. There is nothing on record to indicate and prove that Rs. 40,896/- represented service tax component. There is no confirmation of M/s Hindalco to this effect. The appellants have failed to submit copy of reply to show cause notice along with the appeal and as a result, it is not possible to know what exactly they said in defence against the show cause notice. There is nothing in the appeal to inform if the appellants deposited this amount of Rs. 40,896/- with the Exchequer and if not, why they failed to do so. The appeal lacks substance and credibility. 9. In view of aforesaid observations, I find that the adjudicating authority has correctly con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
