Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 784 - CESTAT NEW DELHILiability of service tax - works contract service - eligible for benefit of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012 or not - filing of incorrect service tax returns - Whether the payment of 50% tax by the appellant and remaining 50% by recipient of its service resulted into short payment of duty, as alleged? - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The admitted fact is that 100% tax liability towards the amount of consideration received by the appellant (the service provider) for providing services of ‘Packaging activity’ to M/s HEG (service recipient) stands discharged by the provider as well as the recipient to the extent of 50% each. There is also no denial to the fact that appellant itself is the manufacturer of the wooden crates i.e. the packing material used while providing the said service to M/s HEG is also manufactured by appellant the service provider and that the service is provided in M/s HEG premises itself. It is observed that 100% tax has already been paid w.r.t. the impugned taxable service of packaging in terms of the Notification No. 30/2012. Then notification applies to WCS and apparently the activity rendered by appellant is WCS. Hence payment of 50% of tax by appellant, the service provider is wrongly alleged as short payment when admittedly remaining 50% of the liability stands discharged by the recipient of the service (M/s HEG) - demand has wrongly been confirmed by the department. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Present is not the case of tax evasion, the returns were regularly been filed by the appellants, we are of the opinion that the extended period should not have been invoked - the charging of service tax again from the appellant the service provider when the liability has been discharged by him under forward mechanism and by the service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism to the extent of 50% each in terms of relevant notification, will amount to the double taxation on the same service, question of alleging an intent to evade payment of service is absolutely in irrelevant. The department is held to have wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation. Appeal allowed.
|