9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larly paying service tax on these services. During the course of audit by the Officers of the Service Tax Commissionerate, they noticed that the taxable value adopted by the appellant assesse for the purpose of payment of service tax was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. Scrutiny of records revealed that the appellant assesse has paid service tax only on the income accounted as Service Income leaving the income under Transportation Income and Brokerage Income etc., disclosed them by suppressing the facts with an intention to evade payment of service tax. Hence, a Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2007 was issued proposing to demand service tax of Rs. 1,12,38,5 67/- for the period from 2002-03 to 2006- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual amount collected, the customers reimburse the same and it was wrongly inferred as income/profit by the department. He submits that the demand of service tax is barred by limitation and the extended period cannot be invoked against them until and unless malafide intent is proved and no penal provision could also be invoked since they are regularly filing ST3 returns and the department is fully aware of this fact and nothing unearthed to prove the suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of service tax. He relies on the following case laws in support of his contention: 1. Aashita International Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad-2015 (38) STR 246 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 2. D.S. Narayana & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Visak-2015 (40) STR 1156 (Tri.- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit, this Tribunal discussed the issue at length to decide the quantum of deposit and ordered full payment of service tax on CHA and BAS. The quantum of service tax payable on the differential value of CHA services is arrived at 10% of the total invoice value. Accordingly, this Bench directed the appellant to make pre-deposit of Rs. 12.00 lakhs i.e. the entire amount of service tax demanded under the head BAS service for the period 03-04 to 06-07 and on the CHA service of Rs. 64.00 Lakhs (being 10% of the value on which tax has been demanded). The appellants are not contesting the service tax on 10% of the value of CHA services on the invoice value and service tax on the BAS service. Accordingly, we hold that the demand confirmed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the International Consultants case settled the issue, therefore, this is a bonafide belief on the appellants on leviability of service tax on reimbursable expenses and also considering the fact that the appellants are registered with the Service Tax department and paid service tax regularly under the CHA services, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the penalties imposed under Section 76 & 78 of the Act. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions we uphold the impugned order of demand to the extent of value of about Rs. 64 lakhs (being 10% value of invoice) under CHA service and also uphold the demand on BAS service subject to quantification by the lower authority. The demand on the value of the reimbu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
