Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Neelkanth Associates Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur-I

2015 (7) TMI 1096 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of Service tax - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency - Appellant contended that it was only entitled to 5% service charges on actual payment made to labour by SZDUSSL and on such service charges, the service tax has already been deposited. No suppression or wilful mis­statements and it was its bona fide belief that the service tax was being rightly discharging by it.

Held that:- it is not in dispute that the gross amount charged for the service was inclusive of the amount of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e contention of the appellant that there was no wilful suppression or mis-statement of facts on its part with the intention to evade service tax. The entire demand pertains to the period beyond the normal period of one year and hence is hit by time bar. Therefore, the demand is set aside. - Decidde in favour of appellant - ST/58642/2013-CU(DB) - Final Order No. ST/A/52099/2015-CU(DB) - Dated:- 3-7-2015 - Justice G. Raghuram, President and Shri R.K. Singh, Member (T) Shri Yogendra Aldak, Advocate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangl Ltd. (SZDUSSL). 2. The appellant contended in its appeal that it was only entitled to 5% service charges on actual payment made to labour by SZDUSSL and on such service charges, the service tax has already been deposited. It stated that there was no suppression or wilful mis­statements and it was its bona fide belief that the service tax was being rightly discharging by it. The appellant seemed to be financially unable to engage a counsel and therefore Shri Y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

agreement with SZDUSSL provided for reimbursement of service tax only on the amount of commission. Ld. Counsel stated that the fact that it paid service tax on the amount of commission received proves its bona fides. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand stated that the appellant did not respond to the letters and did not give any information, which was eventually obtained from the service recipient, SZDUSSL. So, it is a clear case of suppression of facts. It further stated t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

provider. It is not in dispute that the gross amount charged for the service was inclusive of the amount of payment made to the labourers and therefore the service tax is leviable on such gross amount and not merely on the amount of commission to which the appellant was entitled. Incidentally, the C.B.E.& C. s view is also in conformity with this view as is evident from its Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU, dated 2-7-2005, which in para 22.4 observed as under :- Service tax is to be charged on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

regards the issue of time bar, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has upheld the invocation of the extended period only in terms of para 11 of the impugned order, which is reproduced below :- 11. Since the appellant have wilfully suppressed the facts of rendering taxable service and also suppressed the taxable value with intent to evade payment of service tax. Further, neither they had taken service tax registration nor paid due service tax and the fact of evasio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

only on the amount of commission actually adds credence to the appellant s contention that it genuinely believed that the service tax was chargeable only on the amount of commission because it did not stand to gain anything by putting in the agreement that the service tax is recoverable from the service recipient only on the commission received and not on the entire amount. That it paid the service tax recovered from the service recipient further demonstrates the appellant s bona fides. The evid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version