9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. If the excess payment is taken into consideration, the actual short payment would be Rs.18,54,859/-, as per the work-sheet submitted by the appellant. Written off the advances received for the period prior to 31.03.2003 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, since the appellant has written off an amount of Rs.1,75,55,398/- on which the Service Tax liability works out to Rs.18,08,206/- This written off amount cannot be considered as income of the appellant in the year of write off and service tax cannot be demanded on this amount. Thus, the matter is remanded for recalculating the demand on this count. Whether the demand for Service Tax on services rendered by the appellant's Japan branch to an Indian client is sustainable? - HELD THAT:- The amount has been wrongly mentioned towards the services exported by the appellant's Kolkata branch. The service has been actually rendered by the Japan branch of the appellant to the Indian company, namely, M/s. MMTC Ltd. In such circumstances, Service Tax, if at all payable, shall be payable under reverse charge mechanism by M/s. MMTC Ltd. Therefore, the demand of service tax on this count from the appellant is not sustainable. Non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant have accepted this liability and already paid the tax. Thus, the amount paid by the appellant is to be appropriated against this liability. vi) The appellant has submitted a CA certificate which needs to be considered and the liability of service tax on this count needs to be re-worked on the basis of the CA certificate. As the appellant has questioned the calculation of Service Tax liability, the issue needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority, for verification of correctness of the claim made by the appellant. v) Suppression of facts with the intention to evade the payment of tax has not been established in this case. Consequently, the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable.
The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.00 Total -18,54,859.00 2.2. Regarding the balance amount of Rs.18,54,859/-, the appellant submits that they have amount received prior 31.3.2003 has been written off the amounts received prior to 31.03.2003 in the year 2010-11. However, the written off amount has been considered as income for the year and tax on the same has been demanded. Service tax on the written off amount of Rs. 1,75,55,398/- is worked out to Rs. 18,08,206.00. 2.3. The appellant also submits that they have claimed CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 9,52,922.00 up to the year 2010-11 and CENVAT credit of Rs.2,82,208/- for the year 2011-12, in the ST-3 returns filed by them; but, the Department has not allowed the credit without any valid reason. Thus, the following amounts needs to be deducted from the demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order : Serial No. Technical Inspection & Certification Service Amount (Rs.) 1 Amount written off pertain to receipts prior to 31.3.2003 18,08,206.00 2 CENVAT Credit not considered 12,35,030.00 Total 30,43,236.00 2.4. If the amount of Rs.18,08,206 is deducted and the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 12,35,030/- eligible to them is allowed to pay th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate re-calculating the liability in respect of 'renting of immovable property service'. The appellant have accepted their liability as per the calculation done by them and also submit that they have already paid this amount. Accordingly, it is prayed that the liability in this regard may be restricted to Rs.1,60,316/- 7. The appellant also urged that they had submitted their Returns regularly and had also not suppressed any information from the Department; hence, the extended period cannot be invoked to demand Service Tax from them. In these circumstances, the appellant contends that the demand is not sustainable on the ground of limitation also. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 9. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 10. We observe that the Service Tax amounting to Rs.50,93,353/- has been confirmed on various counts in the impugned order. 10.1. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.34,07,106/- confirmed under the category of 'technical inspection and certification service', we find that the appellant has made excess payment during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written off an amount of Rs.1,75,55,398/- on which the Service Tax liability works out to Rs.18,08,206/- This written off amount cannot be considered as income of the appellant in the year of write off and service tax cannot be demanded on this amount. Thus, the matter is remanded for recalculating the demand on this count on the basis of our above observations. 10.2. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.4,49,455/-, we find that this amount has been wrongly mentioned towards the services exported by the appellant's Kolkata branch. The service has been actually rendered by the Japan branch of the appellant to the Indian company, namely, M/s. MMTC Ltd. In such circumstances, Service Tax, if at all payable, shall be payable under reverse charge mechanism by M/s. MMTC Ltd. Therefore, we hold that the demand of service tax on this count from the appellant is not sustainable. 10.3. Regarding demand of Rs.8,17,482/-, raised on the alleged non-inclusion of electricity charges collected from the tenants, we observe that the appellant has been collecting the electricity charges as a 'pure agent'. Thus, we find that these expenses amount to reimbursement of electricity charges, paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
