9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eamer Agent services. During the period September, 97 to March, 2001 they collected an extra amount of Rs. 26,66,553/- from their clients towards the services rendered but did not pay service tax on the said amount. During investigation, statement of Shri Christopher James, the Managing Director of the appellant firm was recorded on 9-1-2002 wherein, he inter alia, admitted that his firm had recovered additional amounts from their clients which were not declared to the department while filing the service tax returns and furnished bill-wise details of the extra amounts collected. A show cause notice dated 6-3-2002 was issued to the appellant proposing to demand service tax of Rs. 1,33,326.50 on the extra amount collected along with interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is payable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bax Global India Ltd. reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 412 wherein, in similar circumstances pertaining to CHA services, the demand was set aside. (3) The demand for the extended period of time is barred by limitation. The extra amounts collected were reflected in their books of accounts. Hence suppression of facts with an intention to evade service tax cannot be alleged. (4) The non-payment of service tax is due to ignorance of the provisions of law and therefore, a lenient view be taken and penalty imposed should be set aside. 4. The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue refused the contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sides. 5.1 As regards the additional ground raised regarding jurisdiction, the said issue was not raised by the appellant either before the adjudicating authority or before the appellate authority. The appellant acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, they are stopped from raising this issue before this Tribunal at the second appellate stage. This Tribunal in the case of Sangameshwar Pipe and Steel Traders case (cited supra). In the said case, this Tribunal held as follows :- "6.1 .....Ld. Counsel's jurisdictional objection will be rejected as barred by estoppels. A jurisdictional objection has to be raised at the earliest opportunity. Such opportunity was available to the appellants when the SCN w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her than the statutory levies required to be collected; in many cases, the same were a couple of times more than the requirement. In other words, the appellants were collecting amounts charges for the services rendered under the guise of statutory levies and retaining the excess amounts with them on which they did not discharge any service tax liability. Therefore, the demand of service tax on the amounts so collected along with interest thereon under Section 73 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, is sustainable in law and we hold accordingly. The reliance placed by the appellant on the Bax Global case is of no help to them as the facts are different. In that case the appellant was acting as a CHA and collected amounts not in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
