Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 702 - CESTAT CHENNAICENVAT Credit - input services for providing output service namely sponsorship service - The department was of the view that appellant being not eligible to pay service tax for sponsorship services and credit cannot be allowed - The demand arises out of the basic allegation that the appellant has wrongly paid the service tax on sponsorship service when actually service recipient ought to have paid. Held that:- The department has no case that the appellant has not paid the service tax on these input services nor is there a case that they are not used for providing sponsorship service. The only allegation is that the appellant ought not to have collected the service tax on sponsorship service. Generally, it is the output service provider who has to pay the service tax and in some cases like sponsorship services, the Service Tax Rules provide that the liability to pay service tax is upon the service recipient. Appellant has collected service tax wrongly from service recipient and paid to Central Government instead of the service recipient paying it directly to Central Government for sponsorship services - Other than this allegation of wrongly paying the service tax on sponsorship service, there is no evidence of positive act of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of service tax on the part of appellant. On the mere ground that the appellant has wrongly discharged the service tax on sponsorship services, the entire demand has been raised. There is no iota of evidence to establish that there was any willful intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of service tax by suppression of facts - the demand raised for the extended period cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside on the ground of limitation and the appeal is allowed
|