9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C. Kamra & Shri. G.K. Mahajan, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Amresh Jain, Ld. DR, we find that the service tax has been confirmed on various grounds. The applicant is a registered service provider under the category of storage and warehousing cargo handling, cleaning, commercial training and coaching, renting of immovable property and transportation of container by rail and pest control cleaning services etc. Apart from the said services, he is also providing another services which are either not taxable or exempted. 3. Out of the total demand, demand of Rs. 1.12 crores stands confirmed by comparing the ST-3 return with the income as shown in the balance sheet. Though, we find that the appellant has tried to explain such differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id demand is on the account of interest and to the extent of around Rs. 28 lakhs, the said interest stands confirmed on the ground that in terms of section 67 of the Finance Act any advance received from the customers for the services to be provided are required to be discharged service tax liability at that point of time only. 5. In as much as the appellant has discharged the service tax subsequently at the time of providing service there is a loss of interest to the Revenue to the extent of around Rs. 61.69 lakhs. 6. We prima facie agree with the ld. Advocate that the deposits / advances made by the customers have fully discharged the service tax on the same either in the year of deposit or in the subsequent year, thus not calling for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory of renting of immovable property was being accepted by the Revenue without any objection, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant. Otherwise also we find that the appellant is a central Government undertaking in which case it cannot be said at this prima facie stage that they were indulging in evasion of duty by suppressing any facts or by misstatement, with an intention to evade payment of duty. On this ground also we find prima facie case in favour of the appellant and accordingly dispense with the condition of pre deposit of the said amount. 9. Further, confirmation to the extent of Rs. 2.74 lakhs, Rs. 2.62 lakhs and Rs. 8827/- is on grounds that by providing the two employees of the appellant to WWIL and SICAL they have prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
