Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 803 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Services - appellant s claim is that the said confirmation of service tax is not appropriate, inasmuch as while providing services, they have received certain amounts on account of the reimbursable expenses as also on account of the supply of goods - Held that - The appellant has not been able to substantiate their plea by production of relevant telephone bills or the purchase of goods orders etc. Appreciating the said fact as also the fact that the demand is much on the lower side and the period involved is almost 12 years back, there is no justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Confirmation of demand under "Business Auxiliary Services" category, appropriating deposited amount, confirmation of balance amount, appellant's claim regarding reimbursable expenses and supply of goods, lack of documentary evidence to support appellant's claim, lower side of demand, period of 12 years back. Confirmation of Demand under "Business Auxiliary Services" Category: The lower authorities confirmed a demand against the appellant under the category of "Business Auxiliary Services" amounting to ?4,76,445. The appellant claimed that the confirmation of service tax was not appropriate as they had received amounts for reimbursable expenses and supply of goods. However, the Original Adjudicating Authority noted that the appellant did not provide any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim, leading to the denial of the benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) also expressed inability to consider the issue raised due to the absence of documentary support. Appellant's Claim Regarding Reimbursable Expenses and Supply of Goods: The appellant contended that they received amounts for reimbursable expenses and supply of goods, which, according to them, did not attract service tax liability. The appellant failed to produce relevant documentary evidence such as telephone bills or purchase orders to support their claim. Despite the appellant's arguments and the fact that the demand was on the lower side and related to a period almost 12 years back, the tribunal found no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision and rejected the appeal. This judgment highlights the importance of providing documentary evidence to support claims in tax-related matters, as the lack of such evidence can lead to the denial of benefits sought by the appellant. The tribunal's decision underscores the need for thorough documentation and substantiation of claims, especially in cases involving tax liabilities and reimbursements.
|