TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x properly, enquiries were conducted by calling for records from the appellant as well as from the banks. On completion of enquiry, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issue of SCN dated 17.10.2011. The case was adjudicated resulting into impugned order. The original authority held that the appellants are liable to pay service tax of Rs. 1,21,36,522/- for the period from April, 2006 to March, 2011. He also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The ld Counsel for the appellant contesting the findings in the impugned order submitted mainly on the following lines: a) The impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The relied upon documents were not made availab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in this regard. f) The Service Tax liability has been paid in terms of pre-deposit order passed by the Tribunal. The appellants were facing huge financial problem and unavoidable situation during the material period, hence the penalty imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained. 4. The ld AR contested the appeal on the following points: a) The appellants registered with the department and were engaged in this business for many years even before the introduction of service tax liability on the said service. They have deliberately paid service tax only on a part of the consideration without any legal basis. b) Further, they have collected service tax and not paid to the Government and neither filed returns for two years from April,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learly brought out the deliberate intent of non-payment of service tax. 5. The appellants contested the valuation of their taxable service for payment of service tax. They relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Inter-continental Consultants and Technocrats (P) Ltd, (13129) STR 9(DEL). We note that in similar set of facts, the Tribunal in the case of M/s Neelav Jaiswal & Brothers-2014(34) STR 225 (Tri.Del.) observed as below: "5. Shri B. Laxminarasimhan, ld. Counsel for the appellants refers to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.) to support his contention that under Section 67 of the Act the value of a taxable servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble „manpower recruitment or supply agency‟ service. M/s. Hindalco consideration for such taxable service provided by the appellant had remitted to the appellant not only the amount agreed to between the parties for remunerating the personnel so deployed but also the amount of provident fund payable by the appellant to Provident Fund authorities, in terms of the appellant‟s statutory obligation. Both these amounts therefore constitute the gross amount charged by the appellant for the taxable service provided to M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd., since the taxable service was provided for a consideration in money. Both these amounts therefore constitute the gross amount charged by the appellant for having provided the taxable s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s given by the General Manager and Director of the appellant apart from the bank statements of the appellant. Certain calculation sheets were also referred to for quantification of service tax. All these details are available with the appellants. In fact, Shri Ishan Singh, Director of the appellant Company in his statement dated 21.07.2011 and 28.07.2011 had categorically admitted that all receipts are only through two bank accounts and are towards taxable service provided by them. He also verified these statements and tax calculation based on such statements and clarified the correctness of the same. He also admitted that they received service tax payment from the client and did not deposit the same with the Government. The total Service T....