9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the appellants were engaged in providing services under the category of 'Management Consultant Services' and were registered with the Department for payment of service tax. During the Audit of the records of the appellant it appeared to Revenue that there were certain discrepancies and on the basis of said discrepancies it appeared to Revenue that there was short payment of service tax. Therefore investigations were initiated against them and on the basis of investigation a show cause notice dated 08/10/2012 was issued. As per the said show cause notice the appellant had undertaken implementation of 'Skill Development Programme' aimed at training rural BPL youths in area of textile, leather and pharma industries under Swarnjayanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity is on receipt basis and thus no ST payable on amounts not realized. ii. No explanation given for income of INR 54,51,017/- and thus ST (INR 5,61,455/-) payable thereon. iii. Services rendered to SEZ Units are taxable, on which ST of INR 30,21,221/- is payable. INR 35,82,676/- 2. Services rendered to International Financial Corporation 3,30,011 Management Consultant IFC is not notified under Section 3 of the UN Act, 1947 and thus ST is payable thereon. INR 3,30,011/- 3. Implementation of skill development program, aimed at training rural BPL youths in area of textile, leather and pharma industries under Swarnjayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) of the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) where under 75% of cost contributed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 83,91,899 3. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. Heard both the sides and considered submissions from both the sides. The individual demands and our findings are recorded hereinafter:- A. Demand of service tax of Rs. 23,44,07,478/-. (i) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the details of Skill Development Programme for rural BPL Youths under Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana implemented by Ministry of Rural Development of Government of India is available at Page-107 onwards in appeal paper book. He has submitted that object of the said programme was for development of skill of specified number of youths from below poverty line strata of society where 75% of the amount required for impartin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein collected grant-in-aid from Government and grant-in-aid was totally utilized for implementation of welfare scheme and nothing over and above said grant-in-aid was received by the assessee and it was concluded that the assessee therein did not receive any consideration for any service to the Government. This Tribunal had held in the said case that service tax was not leviable on grant-in-aid received by the assessee from the Government as Project Implementing Agency of Government. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount received for the said programme on which demand of about Rs. 23 crores (approximate) of service tax was demanded is not sustainable in view of the said Final Order passed by this Tribunal as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved for rendering services to SEZ Units. He has submitted that in view of Section 51 of SEZ Act, 2005 the provisions of SEZ Act have affect not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. He has further submitted that as per clause (e) of Sub-section (1) to of Section 26 of SEZ Act, 2005, every developer and entrepreneur is entitled to exemption from service tax under Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 on taxable services provided to developer or units to carry on the authorized operations in Special Economic Zone. He, therefore, submitted that the demand of Rs. 30 lakhs (approximate) is not sustainable. (ii) Learned A.R. for the Revenue has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant had provided. In the absence of an allegation of having provided a specific taxable service in the show cause notice and in view of the failure in the adjudication order as well, neither the show cause notice nor the consequent adjudication order could be sustained." Relying upon the precedent decision of this Tribunal, we hold that demand of service tax of Rs. 5,61,455/- is not sustainable. Therefore, we set aside the same along with interest and equal penalty. D. Demand of Service Tax of Rs. 3,30,011/-. (i) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant had rendered service to International Financial Corporation. The learned Original Authority has held that IFC is not notified under Section 3 of UN Act, 1947 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
