9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring prices/trophy for the competition and all other expenses incurred towards organizing of the said event were borne by the appellant that too that with intent to obtain commercial benefit by bringing their name or product or services in public image to public attention by associating with the said event. No evidence is produced by the appellant to falsify the said observations. The said activity clearly falls under the scope of sponsorship services which invites the service tax liability. Hence there are no infirmity when this demand of service tax of Rs. 29,301/- has been confirmed against the appellant. Demand on account of difference in the amount shown in ledger and one shown in the ST-3 returns - HELD THAT:- The amount of consideration paid for receiving legal consultancy services is taxable under reverse charge mechanism and the 100% service tax is to be paid by the service recipient in terms of Entry No. 5 of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20 June 2012. Hence the total amount paid by the appellant to his lawyers is liable to service tax and the liability is to be discharged by the appellant under RCM. There is appellant s own admission that the amount of notary charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s registered for providing various taxable services. During the course of audit of appellant s records for the year 2014-2015, it was noticed as follows: (i) The appellant had paid Rs. 20,000/- to the Directors as sitting fee. Said amount attracts service tax under reverse charge mechanism in terms of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20 June 2012. Further verification revealed that the appellants had paid tax on the amount of Rs. 10,000/- out of the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the category of Business Auxiliary Services and have also shown the same in the ST-3 returns. With respect to remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- the appellant vide their reply dated 31.03.2016 had acknowledged that the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was not included due to oversight. Accordingly, service tax amounting to Rs. 1236/- is proposed to be recovered on this amount. (ii) The appellant had paid testing, analysis and certification charges to their service provider located outside India for which also appellants were liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism. They have made total payment of Rs.13,73,350/- during 2014-2015. Though the appellant vide their reply dated 26.07.2016, den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the goods need to temporarily come into the physical possession or control of the service provider, and without this happening, the service cannot be rendered. Testing, inspection, analysis etc. of goods are well covered under such services. In the present case, goods have not come to the service provider hence service tax has wrongly been demanded from the appellant. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the demand has with respect to the service tax of Rs. 5020 on legal consultancy services has also been wrongly confirmed. It is mentioned that difference in ST-3 and the ledger is for the reason that Rs. 1,91,865/- was paid for the expenses like notary charges, stamp purchase charges etc. public notary is not working as advocate. Hence the fee paid to notary is not an amount towards legal and consultancy service the same is not liable to be taxed. With respect to demand of service tax vis- -vis sponsorship services, learned counsel has relied upon the Circular No. 334/1/2010-TRU dated 26.02.2010 which clarifies that promoting a brand of goods, service, events, business entity etc. do not invite the service tax liability. 6. With these submissions, the entire service tax d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntions, we observe that the only ground of appeal is about confirmation of demand of service tax on notary charges, stamp expenses etc. under reverse charge and imposition of penalty on the appellant but the other part of the impugned order confirming demand on other aspects is also objected while making submissions before us. Non-consideration of any of those grounds may violate the principle of natural justice hence we take all the issues raised as follows: (A) The service tax demand vis- -vis the Director s fee has duly been acknowledged. Hence we need not to dwell into the said adjudication. Resultantly, the order confirming the demand of service tax of Rs. 1236/- stands upheld. (B) The liability vis- -vis sponsoring the cookery event but the appellant has relied upon the CBEC letter No. 334/4/2006 dated 28.02.2006 and the such letter No. 334/1/2010-TRU dated 26.02.2010 to deny the said liability. From bare perusal of those circulars, we observe that none of those apply to the facts of present case. Admittedly, the cookery event at Sehore, Gwalior was sponsored by the appellant displaying the appellant s company logo and trading name. The adjudicating authority below have obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was existing in appellant s premises but there is no evidence for the same. The service received is otherwise taxable. Hence we hold that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism. Hence the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,69,771/- is also upheld. 10. Coming to the issue of invocation of extended period while issuing the show cause notice as impressed upon by the learned counsel, we have already observed that appellant was aware about his service tax liability to pay service tax on the amount paid by them as Director s fee still the appellant had discharged the liability only with reference to 50% of the said amount of fee. This act is definitely an act of mis-representation, the only possibility is to evade the payment of tax. As discussed above, Notification No. 30/2012 makes the service recipient of legal consultancy service liable to pay service tax on the amount of consultancy fee paid ignorance of law cannot be the defence. Hence the only possible outcome of still not paying the service tax is the intent to evade the tax. The appellant was relying on TRU circulars but those circulars apparently are not extending any exemption to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
