9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to only one service i.e., "Technical Testing and Analysis Service" on which Service Tax has been paid by the service recipient under RCM as per Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended from time to time. 4. An audit of the records relating to payment of Service Tax by the Appellant for the period from April, 2015 to June, 2017 was conducted by the Officers of Department. During the course of audit, certain documents were submitted by the Appellant on being asked by the officers, which was admitted in Show Cause Notice SCN as well as in Order-in-Original also. On the basis of those documents, the SCN was issued to the Appellant. 5. It was alleged that the Appellant issued invoices to M/s. MCX, Sohan Lal Commodity Management Pvt. Ltd., 615-618 and 642-644, DLF Tower, 15, Shivaji Marg, Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi against service of testing of mint samples and charged due Service Tax in the invoices issued by them. It has been further alleged that the Appellant has taken and utilized CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax so mentioned in their own invoices for payment of Service Tax under the category of "Technical Testing and Analysis Service". 6. It was also alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnical Consultancy". The Appellant is paying Service Tax payable on the services under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" and "Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service" as service provider under Sub-section (1) of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994. Service Tax on "Technical Testing and Analysis Service" was paid by the service recipient under RCM as per Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994. The fact of payment of Service Tax by the service recipient was explained before the audit officers as well as before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority who have not disputed this fact. 11. It has been further submitted by the Appellant that it has been admitted in the SCN issued to the Appellant that the audit officers found that the due Service Tax has been paid by the recipient of the service namely M/s. MCX Sohan Lal Commodity Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and that it was felt by the departmental officers that the party‟s version may be correct but the party could not protect themselves from depositing of Service Tax under the shelter of RCM. 12. It has also been submitted that the Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on "Technical Testing and Analysis Service" was payable under Reverse Charge which has not been disputed in the SCN as well as in the Order-in-Original. Findings of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are beyond the allegations in the SCN as well as the findings in the Order-in-Original. 17. It was also submitted that the Service Tax leviable and paid on "Technical Testing and Analysis Service" has been properly discharged by the recipient of service namely M/s. MCX, Sohan Lal Commodity Management Pvt. Ltd. and any further demand on the same transaction shall amount to double taxation. 18. Findings of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the Appellant failed to provide any corroborative evidence that Service Tax has been deposited by the service recipient, are beyond the allegation in the SCN as well as Order-in-Original. It has been admitted in the impugned order that the service recipient has paid only service charges to the Appellant. The summary of Service Tax payable under the transactions of the Appellant with M/s. MCX Sohan Lal Commodity Pvt. Ltd. and paid by the service recipient as well as challans evidencing payment of such tax, were duly submitted before the Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement Pvt. Ltd. have also submitted certificate wherein they certified that they have paid the Service Tax on the services of "Technical testing & analysis Service‟ received from the Appellants under reverse charge. 24. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 25. I observe that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order, has among other things, observed that : - "The Appellant failed to provide any corroborative evidence that Service Tax has been deposited by the service recipient. The ledger account produced by the Appellant only shows that the service recipient has paid only taxable value after deducting TDS on the said transaction. Since. There is no evidence on record that entire Service Tax liability was discharged by the service recipient (not legally liable to pay Service Tax under RCM), therefore I find no force in the submissions of the Appellant." 26. I find from the Appeal memorandum and the documents submitted therewith that the Appellants have submitted a chart indicating payment of Service Tax by the recipient of service namely M/s. MCX Sohan Lal Commodity Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi alongwith respective challans ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, Jaipur-I, 2017 (51) S.T.R. 269 (Tri. - Del.) "Demand - Limitation - Extended period, invocation of - Adjudicating Authority extending benefit of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 - Same ingredients required for invocation of extended period of limitation - Extended period not be invocable - Assessee, a public sector undertaking - Being a State Govt. enterprise allegation of willful misstatement, suppression of facts or deliberate contravention of Rule with an intention to evade duty payment cannot be made - Demand for longer period of limitation set aside - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994." 29. Support is also drawn from the decision in the case of B.S.N.L. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad 2009 (14) S.T.R. 359 (Tri. -Ahmd.):- "Demand (Service tax) - Limitation - Show cause notices issued in September, 2002 for the period from August 1995 to March 1997 and in March 2003 for period April 1997 to December 2001 - SCN issued beyond five years period in one case - Appellant being PSU owned by Government of India, mala fide intention to evade not attributable - Demand time-barred - Merits not considered - Impugned order set aside - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
