TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand, in the facts and circumstances, the element of services tax was included and accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to cum-tax benefit for calculation of service tax liability. Valuation - quantification of taxable value on the receipt basis - Held that:- Tax demanded on gross value of bill raised, during the financial year, which is apparently erroneous, as tax was required to be demanded and/or calculated on receipt basis, as per applicable law till 31/03/2011 - gross demand raised is set aside - matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for recalculation of demand on receipt basis with respect to the services provided under the Raipur Commissionerate. Penalties - Held that:- There is no case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducted by the Central Preventive by Raipur Commissionerate, show cause notice dated 18/10/2012 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation for the period 2007 2008 to 2010 2011 on the basis of consolidated figures shown in the balance-sheet. The liability of the appellant was worked out for service tax at ₹ 1,24,87,581/- with proposal to adjust the amount already paid ₹ 42,45,300/-, thus demanding service tax short paid at ₹ 82,42,283/-. 3. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest confirming the proposed demand and short paid duty of ₹ 82,42,283/-. Further allowing adjustment of ₹ 30,69,516/- being the tax paid by the appellant with respect to their services provided under Bhopal Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issionerate and under Raipur Commissionerate, being a proprietorship concern. The said gross amount included the element of service tax also charged in the bills. Accordingly the appellant is entitled for cum-tax benefit. 5. Lastly the Learned Counsel states that the appellant have disclosed the proper accounts maintained in regular course of business, and also disclosed the amount of gross billing, the receipts, the outstanding/sundry debtors, etc. in their final accounts being profit and loss account and balance sheet, which are duly audited by chartered accountant. The appellant have also reflected the amount of service tax payable on the liability side in the balance-sheet. That there is no case of suppression of facts from the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority. Secondly, in the show cause notice, where the service tax demand had been calculated, it is mentioned that service tax payable (as per actual security service receipts). Accordingly it is apparent that Revenue have given sufficient consideration towards the tax payable on receipt basis. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that so far the demand raised in the impugned order relating to Bhopal Commissionerate, of the Amlai office of the appellant, in respect of services in the state of M.P. is concerned, the said demand hit for jurisdiction, and accordingly set aside. As regards the claim for cum-tax benefit, we are satisfied that the gross amount taken by Revenue for raising the demand, in the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, resulting into default in payment of tax, but there is no deliberate default. Further there is no case by Revenue that there has been diversion of funds from the business of the appellant for non-business use. Accordingly we find that there is reasonable cause for default and as such we set aside the penalty under Section 78 as well as under Section 76 of the Finance Act. So far the other penalties are concerned under Section 77 and under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, these are set aside and remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration upon redetermination of liability in accordance with law. We also make it clear that under the facts and circumstances, the demand for extended period is chargeable, as we have set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
