TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en arrived as per the sales bills for the relevant years the appellant states that in this case the main contractor has also paid service tax which was not taking into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority - the extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue and the demand is required to be limited to the normal period only. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/260/2012 - Final Order No. FO/A/75006/2019 - Dated:- 2-1-2019 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri B.N. Chatopadhyaya, Consultant. for the Appellant (s) Shri H.S. Abidem, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri Bijay Kuma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arged by them from the recipient of the service and payments were subsequently received by them for providing the taxable service to their client, namely, WBPTCL by way of suppressing the fact by not showing the actual amount received by them in their ST-3 return submitted as required in terms of Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules read with Section 70 of the Finance Act. It was alleged that the appellant used to raise their bills including various elements like wage/salary, tiffin allowance, night allowance, dust allowance, bonus, gratuity, contribution to the provident fund etc., and they used to charge additional amount as over head cost which was at the rate of 8 per cent of above charges. But the appellant charged service tax only on over head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r; That the appellant had been meticulously submitting the ST-3 report periodically and also complying with the required provisions relating to service tax under the Finance Act and at no stage any discrepancy was notices. It was also submitted that the appellant is a cooperative society and in pursuit of its social service engaged in providing employment to local unemployed youth by providing manpower supply to various power projects and including main contractor. In this while adjudicating the case Ld. Adjudicating Authority has adopted the balance sheet figures in order to raise the disputed demand wherein he has adopted the figure of total service plus service charge for raising the demand and not with basic value of service rendered. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i-All)] 6. It was submitted that for the disputed period from 2006-07 to December, 200,8 liability, if any, in respect of service tax towards the execution of manpower supply contract directly by the appellant is barred by limitation of time and hence not liable to be paid, having regard to the fact that the appellant discharged its liability either directly or through main contractor. This mode of payment of service tax through main contractor of the appellant on the total transaction value was known to the Department as the regular returns were being filed with the jurisdictional Central Excise Authority. Ld. Advocate also submits that the appellant paid the amount of ₹ 5 lakh as ad hoc payment in the month of Septembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 73(1) 73 (2) of the Finance Act. Audit of the appellant unit has been conducted on 8/9/11 and the appellant submitted reply thereon on 30/9/2011. During the inquiry statement of the Chairman and Director of the company was recorded on 8/10/11. It has been held by the various decisions of Hon ble Tribunal that if the demand is raised at the strength of Audit Objection and the necessary information is available in RT-12/ ST-3 return the extend of demand cannot be sustained. In this case, we find that the appellant has submitted the ST-3 returns indicating the amount received from their clients for providing the taxable services. It is the submission of the Revenue that in the return actual amount received has been suppressed by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
